Web Video Confused Matthew Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

06:36:39 AM Apr 7th 2014
I want to mention his seeming confusion on the word "protagonist", as he struggles to describe the main characters of Starship Troopers. His use of the term seems to indicate that he thinks protagonist means 'hero'.

Does anyone know what trope this should be?
11:22:00 PM Apr 7th 2014
That doesn't look like a trope to me...
07:35:51 AM Apr 8th 2014
It feels like You Keep Using That Word.
07:54:48 AM Apr 8th 2014
Well, "protagonist" is frequently used for "hero", so I would not say so.
01:36:46 PM Apr 8th 2014
Except that we have the trope Villain Protagonist specifically for those instances where the main character is a villain.
09:24:52 AM Jun 8th 2011
Ok I hope I don't start a battle like the one that started this page, but, TV tropes point out the positives, the negatives and all the different kinds of grey, so it would be very bad if the page was like it was years ago, a CM is so great page, but people still like need to try and keep their posts, be it positive or negative, as neutral as possible, things like Completely Missing the Point and Did Not Do The Research are almost bound to be negative, there's no helping that but even so try to make it the least opiniated as possible, that also goes for the positive ones too, like this entry that I just edit: Author Appeal: He has a strong interest in philosophy, being most annoyed by those films that claim to pose philosophical conundrums and don't (such as the Matrix sequels). it's already been said that MC has many flaws as a critic, so just because he said so should be stated as a complete fact. I changed it to this: Author Appeal: He has a strong interest in philosophy, being most annoyed by those films that claim to pose philosophical conundrums but he thinks don't (such as the Matrix sequels). it doesn't make Matrix never really posing philosophical conundrums sound like a fact.
10:52:01 AM Jun 8th 2011
Thats a fine rewording but Matrix does have pretentions of being philosophical. It asks questions about perception, reality, and identity. Whether or not it lives up to that is not really worth debating, but it is trying to be that kind of film. Its trying to be Mind Screw.
11:14:00 AM Jun 8th 2011
I would like to know why you deleted my ''also his review on Spirited Away" post, it's not that I have a big problem with it, I'm here to learn, so was it not adequate, badly written, didn't had place in there at all, etc. I would like to discuss that until maybe help make the right post the right way
10:20:55 AM Jun 10th 2011
Did Not Do The Research is an overused trope in general (there is growing consensus on that.) So we should reserve it for the really bad examples (or the not so bad ones that try to pass as well researched fact.) Matthew did an acceptable level of research for someone who hates anime and warns his audience that he hates anime before doing the review. Again, he only did the review because it was requested and a donation was given to him. Its not a review he would have done otherwise.

11:03:27 AM Jun 10th 2011
edited by marcellX
er....actually no he didn't, in fact many people don't care that he didn't like anime, but that he didn't do any research, it's clear by his "the girl was suppose to be spoiled" and "every thing that appears is random" in fact I myself pointed out in the review page what a lousy job simply by not going to at least one of the most simple pages like Wikipedia, who doesn't focuses solely on Spirited Away or even anime and that probably lacked a lot of info in itself, it even had a Themes and Archetypes section, if you watch a movie about Greek mythology you gotta do research before categorizing Cerberus, the titans and the sisters of fate random and unexplained, if you watch a movie with Japanese lore, mythology, etc. you gotta do research on it before you call everything random, heck I didn't know what all those things were myself but I knew they weren't random, I didn't knew they were different chorus of angels but the first time I saw a cherubim I didn't call it a completely made up thing without basis.
11:49:34 AM Jun 10th 2011
edited by marcellX
I just watched his review again and I quote: "Like all animes ever made the world in which this is set is not very well defined, the people here work at a bath house for spirits but it's unclear who these spirits are, where do they come from or what the parameters are." again as I said above, Japanese mythology, folklore, lore, etc. He even flat out says and I quote: "it's like the makers of this film are just barfing out whatever weird thing comes into their heads." that's even scratching out that he din't even know all the writting was done by one person Hayao Miyazaki since he said makers, then he goes on to complain about the baby and how spirits procreate never once thinking of Our <<insert something here>> are Different, which would had lead him to do some research. Heck the whole the girl was suppose to be spoiled thing is the mayor thing that shows he didn't do any research other than read the back of the cover (which is written by the English marketing department of the company releasing them). Seriously is not that hard. and before you come again with "Matthew did an acceptable level of research for someone who hates anime" yeah Did Not Dothe Research is Did Not Dothe Research, excuses as to why he didn't do the research doesn't change the fact that he didn't, and when you said something is one way (in his case saying the girl was meant to be spoiled) but isn't, it's a Did Not Dothe Research moment no matter what. I was sick, I didn't like it, I was busy, etc. are excuses, and excuses don't go on Did Not Dothe Research because it doesn't change the fact that the fact is wrong like what he said about Armageddon. In the Did Not Dothe Research page even if a person got many other things right, the things that they got wrong is what throws them in there.
05:40:19 PM Jun 10th 2011
He shouldn't have done the review. I see that now, but I only think that because the Anime fandom has become the cancer of this page. He panned one anime in one of his least important reviews and the fanboys set themselves on this page with a vengeance. You refuse to accept anything short of total comprehension and appreciation of the cartoons you like.

And again. He shouldn't HAVE to do the research. He didn't seek this movie out in the niche section of a video rental shop. He didn't import it. He didn't download it from a Japanese torrent site. He reviewed a movie that was released as a mainstream movie in mainstream american theater. It was marketed in such a way as to make it seem accessible to mainstream american audiences. When you walk into the theater, you should have to have read up on the movie you're about to watch beforehand.

Therefore, he has every right to criticize the movie for not providing him the context for what was happening. He might have directed his criticism at the distributors instead of the writers but other than that, what he said was valid. And if the back of the box said the girl was supposed to be spoiled and she wasn't, he has every right to critique that, whether it was a bad translation or not.

There are movies from the east that can be appreciated by western audiences with no back ground in any eastern culture. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon is an example. I didn't need to know what the historical period was or what the names of the clothing and swords were, and the cultural rules that were relevant to the story were explained. The character motivations were relatable and basic. Spirited Away on the other hand, basically came across to me as a japanese Alice in Wonderland only it made less sense, I didn't mind that but it was the only level on which the movie registered with me. If it had some greater meaning to people who are familiar with Japanese culture, its not my fault for not knowing that.

06:46:15 PM Jun 10th 2011
edited by marcellX
Ok that is all good and all (well not really it just came as a Mattew fanboy from your part, sorry but it's true) the point is that it has the requirements for Did Not Dothe Research, like I said he said something without doing research, were you suppose to know that even not being japanese? no, is it your or his fault that you guys didn't knew any of those things? no, but that's the point, he said they were just random, he didn't do the research and gave an argument on it, that's the point of Did Not Dothe Research, this is not about why the movie is good or bad or anything like you kinda leaned towards a bit in your post. I don't want acceptance, I don't want comprehension, hell you even admitted that he didn't do much research: "He shouldn't HAVE to do the research. see, did he had to or not, that's not the issue Lol, the point is that he didn't, this is a something something I found where it shows exactly what you're doing right there, from 1:58 to 3:02, but fine if it bothers you so much that your precious Matthew gets any criticism, saying things like Anime fandom has become the cancer and flat out He shouldn't HAVE to do the research. then I wont tarnish his page with my post, because I was mistaken to think that this site didn't give special passed to certain people and that it was trying to be equal in praise and criticism. Lol I mean c'mon man, Did Not Dothe Research/He shouldn't HAVE to do the research, if you don't see it then suit yourself.
06:52:42 PM Jun 10th 2011
edited by marcellX
ps. he's a reviewer he's Suppose to do the research otherwise he's no different than anyone I find on the street Lol, try running that argument by any televised critic or magazine critic, hell even most people who have ever been on a debate team, but I digress, have your site the way you want it. (and yeah figure the meaning there before you say anything)
09:32:42 PM Jun 10th 2011
First, I said "the Anime fandom has become the cancer of THIS page." You want to talk about Did Not Do The Research and you can't even quote me correctly. Second, Matthews consistent contention is that a work must stand on it's own. For example, if a plot point is only explained in the book of the movie, that doesn't change the fact that the movie itself has a Plot Hole.

I've tried to call Bellisario's Maxim to your attention a couple of times and it applies here. A critic who started as a youtube poster just doing it for fun, who still has a day job, who doesn't normally watch anime and who is doing a bunch of other reviews, did a Requested Review of an Anime film. These reviews are much shorter than his main reviews and he does them as a thanks to a fan that has made a donation (someone gave him money and asked him if he could do this and he obliged) Its a bit much to expect him to learn enough about Anime for this one little review to confidently critique it. He could only say "I don't like anime and I don't feel like this movie held up." Again, go read Bellisario's Maxim then we can talk.

The point is, you're technically correct but splitting hairs and while this page is clean now there was a lot of needless beating up of the critic on the main page which is supposed to be neutral. I'm not the only one that's been watching it to keep it neutral.

And I can stand criticism of him. I have some myself. If you were to tilt your head slightly when you keep adding your entry under Did Not Do The Research you'd see a perfectly intact criticism of his research failure in Armageddon. He was wrong, and it was one of his main reviews and an American film. If he's going to critique the depiction of the shuttles, he'd better be confident of what he's saying and he wasn't. He got it wrong.

09:05:29 AM Jun 11th 2011
edited by marcellX
03:44:25 PM Jun 14th 2011
  • sigh* again missing the point,
    • I do weary you so.

  • you said the Anime fandom has become the cancer, be it to this page, to this site, to the world, that doesn't matter,
    • It does matter because I'm not trying to condemn absolutely everyone thats into Anime. I might have chosen a few words poorly in that regard but by limiting the scope to this page, it should be clear that my intent was to express my frustration at the fandom for being so vindictive. I'll go into more detail below.

  • the point is that I wasn't doing it as a fan or anything,
    • It certainly comes across that way when you simply put "his review of Spirited Away" without any qualification or explanation of how or why its an example. You may have noticed the other entry under that trope on his page had a thorough explanation of why Matthew was wrong to criticize Michael Bay for the space station refueling sequence.

  • You go on and on complaining about other things, trying of belittle my reasons with unrelated trivialities,
    • Where?

  • I didn't said he had to research anime as a whole, I didn't even said he had to research anime at all, just the movie, because after all he was reviewing it. The thing is the importance of the review (you call it little review) the length of the review, or why he took the review doesn't matter, because like I said this is not about him doing a good job or not, or if it's too much to expect him to do it or if it's not excuse for doing a bad review, the point again, is the trope, he fills the qualifications, so why does he get a freebie?,
    • Because of his persona. When left to his own devices, he reviews movies that in his experience got an unwarranted amount of praise or attention. More recently, he has done a few reviews to provide distinctions and counterexamples of earlier criticisms but either way, he's reviewing movies that personally motivate a response from him. Its why he's doing all this work in the first place when he also has a day job and this gig doesn't pay much or at all (certainly not enough to justify what he's doing for the money alone.) So when he's asked to do a review thats not personally motivating, such as the review of Spirited Away, he can be expected to put less effort in. At that point, he's doing it for a single fan and for the money he was given (which is usually barely enough to cover his cost of buying the movie to review it.)

Bottom line is that you admitted that he didn't do the research: He dind't HAVE to do research, that is the point, all your going on and on is reasons why he should get a special pass that no one else has. Bellisario Maxim talks about complaining about specific questions etc. I point you to the Did Not Dothe Research page: first paragraph Writers in film, television and other media can sometimes be lazy people who cannot be bothered to do proper research on subjects relevant to the plot of their work of fiction. At other times (especially in TV), they just cannot squeeze research into the 10 days or so they get to write a script. In other cases, putting in too much detail would be distracting and annoying. In any case, the research did not get done see that last part there, "In any case, the research did not get done" you can go on and on but the research wasn't done, second paragraph The result is that depictions of events and concepts taken from history, foreign cultures, or the sciences will often be heavily distorted, caricatured, or inaccurately depicted as being analogous to something more familiar to the audience. see that is something that doesn't has to be done to make it appeal to everyone because that's the point of demographics, so that's not an excuse. Third paragraph Often these mistakes will be so glaringly obvious to anyone with any sort of basic knowledge of the subject that it will make the entire work seem completely ridiculous. besides people who live in Japan and nearby, they teach you the basic in Humanity 101, and other classes I can't remember their names at the moment, the eight line says Note: Situations in which the research may or may not have been done, but is ignored in favor of the story, is Artistic License. When the science in an old work has since been disproven, that's Science Marches On; when the historical records change, that's History Marches On. When a factual error is left in because it has become traditional, that's The Coconut Effect. For the contrary effect, see Like Reality Unless Noted when this is willfully ignored, the Rule Of Cool takes effect, or the MST 3 K Mantra is used., does he fall into any of those?. You even said yourself "you're technically correct but splitting hairs" it sounds that if I said "I love Confused Matthew but he didn't research Spirited Away" you would had been more ok with it.
  • Justifying text aside, the point of Did Not Do The Research is that the writer didn't put in a reasonable amount of effort into fact checking. He did. Regarding the girl, he read the back cover. It was a synopsis. Covers do lie, but its to sell the movie (something like "Witness the breathtaking spectacle." or "John Hero is a badass." Something that would get the buyer excited about the movie.) calling the protagonist a spoiled brat in the synopsis isn't going to make the movie more marketable and doesn't come across as the sort of thing a marketing department would lie about or exaggerate to make you want to buy a movie. So no, he couldn't be expected to second guess the synopsis about the movie's intentions. Calling Anime a genre is likewise more Bellisario's territory than Did Not Do The Research. Nobody outside of Anime fandom uses the term correctly and the medium has a distinctive enough set of tropes to seem like a genre (to the uninitiated western eye).

Look I like Jon Stewart, he's very controversial and many right wing people hate him just because he has leniency to the left and go in rage every time he ridicules people they like. But, if one of those people who openly say they hate him (not saying I hate Confused Matthew) caught him doing something that goes on Did Not Dothe Research or Completely Missingthe Point or any tropes like that, just because it's those people that did it doesn't change the fact that he did, because no one is perfect.
  • You could literally put this on the page of every single work, every writer, every creator. John Stewart is a professional with a staff of researchers and writers so more can be expected of him but even then, not every flub warrants an entry. It still has to be pretty glaring even with him (and in his case, especially so since his venue is politics which is an area of contention, and he's usually either editorializing or cracking jokes.)
  • But Stewart is a good example. If he says "George Bush is stupid" its not a case of Did Not Do The Reasearch. Stewart is stating an opinion and its received as such. If he had reported that Bush's father put him on easy assignments in the military based on Dan Rather's report, it wouldn't be Did Not Do The Research. Even though it turned out that Dan Rather had not done the research, Jon Stewart is a comedian, not an investigative journalist, he doesn't have time or skill to cross check those findings and its reasonable for him to trust the press especially when they claim to have evidence. But if Stewart himself had made the allegations himself and broken that story based on the forged correspondence, then yes, thats fits the trope. Or if he stated that Article II of the US Constitution enumerates the powers of the legislature (its Article I and it took me five seconds to find that.)

  • I ask you to do what I did, clear from your mind that it was about anime, take out from your mind that it was done by someone you like or dislike, now ask yourself, did the event happen? yes? then it's valid, but like I said, if it bothers you so much I wont put it back there, keep thinking it's fair just because you like the content in it, someone who has shown on this page that is a Confused Matthew fan.
    • I'll admit to some frustration sure, only after seeing a lot of unwarranted criticism heaped on him (check out iwintheinternets in the review section.) If you're going to post it, state why it falls into this category. Don't simply presume that anyone reading the page would immediately recognize the failure in research.
05:47:58 PM Jun 14th 2011
edited by marcellX
ok let's try to make this quick.

09:30:32 AM Jun 19th 2011
edited by gibberingtroper
I'm done with this.

Bottomline, if you want to repost your "Spirited Away" entry, fine, just provide some sort of example of how his review failed at the research when you post it. I don't want to see the following.

  1. His Spirited Away review.
  2. Spirited Away, that is all.
  3. His Spirited Away review, the whole thing.
  4. Spirited Away, just, Spirited Away.

Or anything else like that. If you happen to feel the whole thing is a research failure, you can still put that in the entry (in the entry, not here in the discussion page) but also provide an example of some sort of how he failed. I can't remember if you did that in your reposts and I don't care at this point. But you didn't do it in the original and I'll keep deleting the entry until you do it right. If you want to have the last word. Its yours.
12:14:55 PM Jun 19th 2011
edited by marcellX
wow... you take this way too personal don't you, well it was entertaining while it lasted, and yeah since we're done I like to apologize for the whole posting the same thing a few times (though I didn't wrote what you typed there), got a little irritated when I asked politely for help on how to reword it better and what I got was the aforementioned cancer, vengeance, unaceptable target etc. That was wrong of me.
01:57:00 PM Mar 11th 2011
The original phrasing (of The Faceless entry) implied that Confused Matthew and Stand In Stan are both "fatties". With the hatedom hovering over these boards I wouldn't be surprised is that was intentional. We don't know that Confused Matthew is fat. We only know that Stand In Stan has put on weight over the last couple of years and Confused Matthew has not, and Stand in Stan, while heavy isn't exactly a whale either.
12:12:02 AM Jul 5th 2011
edited by marcellX
Actually you're just paranoid. Almost all of your reasons for editing sound like an attack on the person, just say what's wrong with it and move on. The whole you wouldn't be surprised if it was intentional is over the line. You thought it wasn't clear enough, edit, say why, and move on, your anger displacement that is all over the edit page is not needed.
07:28:17 AM Oct 26th 2011
Its because it keeps happening. I do fix it and move on in most articles but here it had gotten out of hand for a long while so I felt the need to address motivations. You weren't here for the worst of it.
07:16:08 AM Nov 2nd 2011
edited by marcellX
You're accusing someone based on what other people have done....again. No matter how you try to spin it what you did was wrong, again what did going ballistic on him/her accomplish? huh?

p.s. I read all the recorded history, I saw that there were a lot of things that needed to be edited, still doesn't excuse your behavior and outburst specially based on an assumption. Specially since his/her wording can easily be interpreted differently, fatter doesn't strictly mean that both persons were fat, also "fat" is not strictly an insult unlike the words "fag" or "moron" all this are implications that you on your raging state didn't consider.
09:52:37 AM Dec 18th 2010
Related to the last topic: There seems to be a troper, going by the name TVRulez, that is seemingly trying to completely remove this article from the rest of the wiki, as evidenced by him removing Confused Matthew from my Troper page a few days ago. Would report it, but, sadly, have no idea how.
03:18:34 PM Dec 19th 2010
I've already reported him, but for future reference, go to the sidebar on the upper-left corner of the page. Open the "Troperville" heading, and you should see an entry called "Ask the Tropers". This is where you report problematic editors.
01:26:04 AM Dec 20th 2010
Thank you.
04:52:49 AM Nov 23rd 2010
It seems to me that this article calls for a lock, with all the edit matches...
11:24:43 AM Nov 26th 2010
If we can get it fairly neutral, I'd agree.
10:22:15 AM Dec 20th 2010
And I'm one of the offenders.
09:45:32 PM Nov 19th 2010
Huh. This guy seems like a massive bell-end.
10:10:06 PM Jul 3rd 2010
I liked Minority Report, I liked the Incredibles, and I liked things about other movies that Matthew didn't like. I still think its unfair the way he gets treated on this page. Typhoon made a sweep of the page and deleted entries under the guise of removing "justifying edits" and "conversation."

One instance of that "conversation" was me pointing out that he is now responding in video form to some of the criticisms of his own critiques including the criticism immediately above the line I was posting. It was relevant.

I said before that this page needs a moderator, I could take that on but its clear there are some people here like Typhoon and iwintheinternets that I would be fighting constantly.
10:13:31 PM Jul 3rd 2010
And its not that I can't take any criticism of the guy. The "Did not do the research" example is fair for example.
10:17:15 AM Jul 4th 2010
edited by Typhoon
'One instance of that "conversation" was me pointing out that he is now responding in video form to some of the criticisms of his own critiques including the criticism immediately above the line I was posting. It was relevant.'

I have no problem with adding the video. The ONLY reason why I deleted it was because you're unable to add it without making it read like natter.

And yes, I agree that this page needs a moderator. So that it can be protected from attempts to defend Matthew by removing VALID criticism and posting natter.

You HAVE to realize that Matthew is a controversional person. He's got as much haters as lovers (perhaps even more), and it would be WRONG not to mention all the criticism that he gets.
10:24:45 AM Jul 4th 2010
edited by Typhoon
Seriously. Try wording your addition to the page without it sounding like it's in 1st person. Fast Eddie also just deleted one example of it, not only me.
04:53:23 PM Jul 4th 2010
This is the line you deleted under the guise of it being conversation:

"To be clear, he didn't think it was her specifically because he thought the singing voice was too good to be her. So its not inconsistent for him to then be mad at the movie for having her character fired as a singer after turning in that performance."

Show me the first person and the natter. I put that there because the entry it was responding too made it sound like Matthews was somehow inconsistent for complaining that the "Obvious" substitution on Dunst's singing voice then complaining about the character getting fired. His complaint in both cases stemmed from the singing voice sounding so good. In the former case he quickly acknowledged his error and fixed it. In the latter case, his position stands. The voice, whether it belonged to Dunst or a substitute singer sounded, he felt, too good to be fired.

Probably, it should be pared down to just him mistaking Dunst's singing voice for another person and leave out the part about his complaint over her being fired. Only the first part fits the trope anyway.
05:24:54 PM Jul 4th 2010
edited by Tannhaeuser
Someone please explain why "flashing a picture of Inuyasha" is inappropriate when mentioning anime. Or is it the "genre" business again? If so, please say something like, "he defines anime as a 'genre,' when it is more properly considered (in English, at any rate) a 'style.'" But for pity's sake, please don't try to say that anime is a "medium" and just means "animation." Maybe it does in Japan, but no-one on this side of the Pacific is going to take someone seriously who says, "Three Little Pigs" and "Duck Dodgers in the 24th 1/2 Century" are classic animes."

In other words, put the statement back, but only in a meaningful form.
12:58:17 AM Jul 5th 2010
edited by Typhoon
My problem was this part: 'So its not inconsistent for him...'

Basically it sounds like 'someone' is correcting the line above. It would be MUCH better if you just fixed the previous line instead of adding another.
01:16:26 AM Jul 5th 2010
edited by Typhoon
Copied and pasted from here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Anime

—It's important to note that the western definition of "anime" differs from the Japanese definition. As suggested in the paragraph above, "anime" is really not a style but a term. In Japan, it refers to all animation, whether it's eastern or western, cel or CG. Thus, you may see Disney movies filed under "Anime" on a Japanese website, such as Amazon.co.jp. It's mostly outside of Japan that "anime" strictly means "Japanese animation," while non-Japanese animation is called by the much more generic term "cartoons" or "animated features."—

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anime#Visual_characteristics —-Many anime have a very different art style from what would commonly be called "anime style", yet fans still use the word "anime" to refer to these titles.—-

Oh and look at this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnimeGenres

It seems like anime is not a genre itself.

Also I highly recommend you to read this thread: http://www.confusedmatthew.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1143

Especialy this one quote from it:

—I hate it when people refer to anime as a genre. Anime is not a genre! If someone thinks it's a genre, that's usually a tell-tale sign that they really don't know much about it.

Anime isn't even really a style. Anime is a cartoon from Japan. It is no more a genre or style than "cartoon from the United States" is.

Death Note, Case Closed/Detective Conan, Lucky Star, Naruto, Excel Saga, Gurren Lagann. All of those are anime, but no one can claim they're the same genre...—

01:47:16 AM Jul 8th 2010
edited by Tannhaeuser
I don't claim to know much about anime, and don't really care much for the little I do know. On the other hand, I do know something — rather a lot, really — about English, and the use of the word "genre" in a broad sense to mean "type" or "kind" is well established. The most one can say is that it is misleading in this context.

As to the word "anime" itself, it seems rather pointless to introduce a word into English to mean "a cartoon from Japan," when one can say "Japanese animation," "Japanese cartoon," or (if one is in a deprecatory mood) "Japanimation." One might as well insist on people using "Trickfilm" for all cartoons made in Germany as insist that they use "anime" only to mean "a cartoon from Japan." And what does "a cartoon from Japan" mean, exactly? Animated by Westerners in Japan? Animated in other countries by ethnically Japanese artists? Animated by Westerners in the West using Japanese scripts and storyboards? Animated by Japanese in Japan using Western scripts and storyboards? Is Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind anime? The Flight of Dragons? Dr. Snuggles? Kid Power? Every single one of them by the same studio, Topcraft. Is Dragon Ball Z? "Alakazam the Great"? How about Dungeons & Dragons? All Toei. Are the episodes of Gargoyles and Aladdin animated by The Answer Studio (AKA "Walt Disney Animation (Japan)") anime, but the ones animated by "Walt Disney Animation (Australia)" not? How about the parts of episodes?

As an (admittedly somewhat loose) grab-bag term for cartoons characterized by visual elements such as "exaggerated physical features such as large eyes, big hair and elongated limbs... and dramatically shaped speech bubbles, speed lines and onomatopoeic, exclamatory typography," "anime" is a critically useful term; as a variant for "Japanese cartoon" it is an affectation. Nor, indeed, is it in that sense that most people use it. You may not like the fact, as I dislike the fact that many people use "crest" to mean "coat-of-arms," but such is the case, nor can one change it by fiat.

It is irrelevant that many individual examples of anime vary in style. Cassatt, Cézanne, Edgar Degas, Gauguin, Manet, Monet, Renoir, Seurat, and Whistler in painting; Debussy, Ravel, Respighi, Satie, and Ralph Vaughan Williams in music; Baudelaire, Mallarmé, Rimbaud, and Verlaine in literature all display a certain similarity that causes them to be lumped together as "Impressionists." Obviously they vary wildly in style, as in nationality and medium (though there is a French predominance, as in anime a Japanese one). (By the way, the musical Impressionism article on Wikipedia uses "genre" in exactly the same general sense that Matthew did.) There is a certain similarity that allows all of them to be considered as a single kind of thing. So too with anime.

By the way, "Mind Screw," "Rescue Arc, and "Unwanted Harem" are examples of "genre," "subgenre," or "metagenre"? Why have there been no protests on that page?

As to your Shredninja link, anyone capable of writing, e.g., "Haku (the dragon) is a strong symble [sic], he does not get alot [sic] of screen time, (true) but we don't nead [sic] him to, we know that he wants to help Chihiro, we know that her faith in him wavers, but that she thinks about him, and eventualy [sic] we see this expressed as love" is hardly an expert on English usage.

To be blunt, I think Confused Matthew was a silly ass to review an anime film when he knew he disliked anime as a class (which is what he meant by "genre"), though I gather he was badgered into it by a friend. (I'd not have done so for a wilderness of monkeys.) I agree with C.S. Lewis that if one finds he has a visceral dislike of something, he ought to disqualify himself from reviewing it. Nevertheless, to be even blunter, I think it's obvious that those who dislike Matthew for disliking anime are filling this page with gratuitous Take Thats to punish him for stating his dislike publicly. I frankly have to agree with Gibbering Troper that there is a pro-anime Bias Steamroller at work here.

Incidentally — dude, are you really not aware that "quite a few" is an idiom for "many"?
02:14:05 AM Jul 10th 2010
edited by Typhoon
Pro-anime bias?! I'm not even that interested in Anime, unike you who talked about having a 'prejudice' against Anime.

It's also funny about how you complain about Take Thats, yet forgot to mention your own case, when you called (in your review on CM, or was it more of a rant?) anyone with a different opinion on movies a MORON. The same applies to Gibbering Troper, who while adding a Justifig edit, did not forgot to put an unnecesary Take That into the edit reason box, completely ignoring the: 'Please don't be rude. It gets you banned.' text above it.

Almost a year ago, this page basically looked like a shrine to Matthew. I don't know whether it was written by Mathew himself, or by one of his fanatical fans, but the page contained such gems, as 'Matthew achieved Guru status on Youtube", despite the fact that ANYONE can set themselves as a 'guru' by using a dropdown menu on the account page.

Face it. Matthew IS a controversional person, and trying to whitewash this page by removing any and all criticism IS an example of your bias. Whether you like it or not.

Also, it's nice how you dismissed Shredninja by using a blatant Ad hominem, while boasting about your supposed 'expertise' in English.

And lastly: http://www.radford.edu/~lcubbiso/personal/artform.htm
11:20:03 PM Jul 10th 2010
I think the point is, the anime thing is really splitting hairs. He was given money and asked to review an anime film. He doesn't know anime or like it. He said so at the beginning of his review.

When he says "its stupid, its stupid. I hate it, I hate it" he is very clearly lampshading the fact that he just doesn't get into it and he has no good reason for not liking it. And yet some of the people who are attacking him here insist on trying to pin him down on this. They seem to want him to explain himself so that they have arguments to address and refute so that they can either get Matthew to say "Oh! You're right. I guess I'll start liking anime now" or admit he's a bad person. Its like trying to convince someone that they like hamburgers.

In the absence of anything they can actually respond to, they're choosing to latch onto his debatable use of the word "genre." As if to say "ha ha! See? He has no clue what anime is and he's a bad person."

Does Matthew have his flaws? Yes. He trips over his speech sometimes, he can be a bit shrill and every now and then he misses something (though not nearly as often as some of the editors here make it sound like he does.)

I don't mind criticisms here and a few of the things I removed in what I'm willing to admit was an irritated state of mind, I would have left if they weren't as overblown and slanted in their presentation as they were, and its not like I stripped the article of all criticism on any of my edits.
11:31:32 PM Jul 10th 2010
By the way, I think this is kind of damning of your zeal right here.

10th Jul '10 1:49:55 AM Typhoon Few?! People in the hatedom cite this as one of the main reasons. Changed line(s) 47 from: to:

Read the entries. Your reason for the edit makes it seem like you read the word "few" and just couldn't stand the sight of it. In its usage in the original entry "Quite a few" is clearly indicating "Quite a few of those who have seen Matthew's reviews" not "Quite a few of his hatedom."

The original actually better accomplishes the point you inexpertly try to make with your edit, which is that the Hatedom hates Matthew because they feel he misses the point. You make it seem like its only most of the hatedom that hates him for that reason as opposed to the original entry which makes it sound like pretty much all of them hate him for that reason.
05:42:24 AM Jul 12th 2010
edited by Typhoon
If Matthew admits that he's biased against anime, then why shouldn't we mention it? Why shouldn't we mention his ignorance of it? To make him look better?

Oh and I agree that my edit about the hatedom was done poorly. With what I DON'T agree is your accusation of some kind of 'zeal' on my part. Perhaps it would be better to reveal who the real overzealous person is here:

28th May '10 4:50:54 AM gibberingtroper . . . Unlike the anime fans flaming Confused Matthew on this page. I'll be watching this.

So, according to your Take That, people who are critical of Matthew are 'flaming anime fans'. Have you noticed the 'Please don't be rude. It gets you banned.' text above the comment box? No? In that case it will be hard to reach a consensus with you.
02:46:37 AM Jul 13th 2010
edited by Tannhaeuser
Guys, guys, calm down. We're talking about cartoons here, and an amateur critic — not about the Kulturkampf. Let's try to keep some balance. There's a bias on both sides — probably an honorable bias. (I know I would be ticked if Matthew said, "As in almost all operas, the 'Ring Cycle' consists of fat people shrieking at each other until they fall over dead." You might feel the same, GT, if he were to say something like, "Like every Bond film, Goldfinger appeals to timid, undersexed adolescents.") There's a case to be made for and against CM. He certainly does make some wildly exaggerated, probably deliberately provocative statements. You can't entirely blame people for being provoked. On the other hand, though it is legitimate to refute his points, it isn't legitimate to state mere disagreements as facts, either. For instance, a lot of people say Matthew missed the point of Simba's brattiness; others say he didn't. That's an opinion. One cannot fairly state "Matthew completely missed the point" as an absolute fact, because it is in dispute.

Before leaping to edit the main page, why not take the time to thrash the issues out here first? That way we can avoid an Edit War.

By the way, let me be the first to admit that I myself have been a bit of a Jerk Ass in the way I've stated things. (Sometimes one gets a little word-drunk on one's own rhetoric.) So much the more reason to try to work things out in a civilized way now. This is a fun site, guys. Let's not let our tempers ruin it.

By the way, yes, Typhoon, my "review" was just a rant. Mind you, I do think The Lion King is dreck, but it's only a kiddie movie, after all.
02:14:33 AM Jul 15th 2010
edited by Typhoon
Well I personally think that people hate him for getting incredibly angry in his reviews. It's fine if someone says that he dislikes a certain movie, but it's really annoying (for some) to see an adult going berserk over a Disney movie (for the other's it's downright hilarious, like watching a trainwreck). In his Space Odyssey review, he used the 'crap floating in space' sentence not only in his review, but also in his replies to the comment's on his video.

When The Nostalgia Critic reviewed the first Pokemon movie, he stated at the beginning that he never watched the animated series, which is why his negative review of it didn't caused such a large Internet Backdraft. Matthew also stated at the beginning that he doesn't understand anime, but then he behaved as if he did and that caused an Internet Backdraft of biblical proportions.

When the Nostalgia Critic reviewed the Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog, he bashed it to hell and even murdered every character in it, yet he later admitted that he actually LIKES the show and that he only did that review for shits and giggles. He also put up a video titled 'Top 11 F*ck Ups' where he he acknowledged the numerous mistakes he's made in his reviews.

Meanwhile Matthew's reviews are full of genuine rage. Constantly screaming NOTHING HAPPENS. THIS....IS....STUPID. NOTHING HAPPENS. THIS...IS...SO...RETARDED. is not comedy and only results in scaring his viewers away. I saw his video's being posted on various forums and many people (who saw his reviews for the fist time) were either shocked that a person can get this furious over movies or they labeled him a troll. Even worse is that Matthew REFUSES to accept that he could be wrong in at least some of his reviews.

I have no problem with watching a review that bashes something that I like. With what I have a problem is when the reviewer is an utter Jerkass and sucks at reviewing.

The Nostalgia Critic just recently put up a review of Independence Day. Go watch it. Then compare it to Matthews review of the same movie.
02:26:11 AM Jul 15th 2010
edited by Typhoon
Despite of my opinion on Matthew, I still want to make this page as balanced as possible. I want BOTH sides to be represented in here, which is why I vehemently object to Gibberingtroper's accusation's of my supposed bias. I love TV Tropes, and I want it to make a fun place for everyone.
03:46:48 AM Jul 15th 2010
But, Typhoon, your thinking that CM is a jerkass and sucks at reviewing is (again) an opinion — not entirely unjustifiable, but an opinion nonetheless. You cannot expect those who disagree to accept it as a proven fact. I don't. Personally, I think quite a few of his reviews have been spot-on, and I find his sputtering bursts of outrage highly entertaining. A lot of people don't.

I don't mean to be insulting, but you do seem to me to be biased. Most people are. I don't think there is anything wrong with getting angry at Matthew for criticizing something one likes. It only becomes a problem when one lets it distort one's statement of the facts. All I would ask is that, before you make a statement or change somebody else's statement on here, you consider 1) can I prove that what I am saying is true? and 2) can I prove that what the other person is saying is false?

For instance, right here, you said "Matthew's reviews are full of genuine rage." Sorry, you can't know that, unless you can present yourself as an expert witness on psychology. Nor can you say screaming "NOTHING HAPPENS" is not comedy, when quite a few people regard it as exactly that — and you have reason to know that they do. Is it fair to disregard their opinions entirely? You should take that into account when you edit.

That's why I try to do. For instance, on the entry for Refuge in Vulgarity, you included "combined with No Indoor Voice". Well, yes and no. If one says that No Indoor Voice means shouting, or shouting often, yes. If one defines it more strictly as "almost exclusively or exclusively shouting," no. Matthew does a lot of just talking in his reviews. I have to admit, I was very tempted to cut that line. I decided not to because, when I looked for an alternative, the closest I could find was This Is Sparta, which A) has already been mentioned and B) refers more to pauses ... between ... words, and also because Matthew absolutely does shout — a lot. That, I think, makes it fair to mention, although the implications of No Indoor Voice are still somewhat unfairly misleading. So I decided to leave it alone.

One more thing. Please bear in mind, that people who frequent this particular page are more likely to be Confused Matthew admirers than detractors. There's something not quite kosher about going to a page knowing one is going to tick people off, even in the name of fairness or honesty or whatnot. I don't care for Harry Potter much any more, but I don't think it would be right to go to that page just to trash the series, however factually I could do it. Again, Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment.

By the way, T., just as a matter of curiosity — are you a native English speaker? If not, you speak the language very well. If so — well, you have a rather individual understanding of certain nuances that I have never run across before, which pique my philological interest.
04:41:51 AM Jul 15th 2010
edited by Typhoon
Of course it's an opinion. I've even stated it before. It's my opinion and I'm not trying to show it down your (or anyone else's) throat.

You also have no right to accuse other's of bias. Your rant in the reviews section is almost as bad as iwintheinternets?'s.

You're terribly wrong if you think that I visit this page to thrash Matthew. You're also wrong if you're trying to imply that this page should be only written 'by the fans, for the fans'. Just look at the pages for The Irate Gamer or CTRL+ALT+DEL. Despite being popular series, and having many fans, they've also received a lot of criticism and their pages here on TV Tropes reflect it.

Matthew treated this page as his personal website by posting natter and replying to reviews (with the same copypasted natter). Only a few other people did the same thing on the pages about them, one of them even had his page purged and is now only mentioned in the Speak of the Devil page. The moderator of Matthew's forum even keeps googling Matthews name and proceeds to insult people by calling them 'talentless'. THAT'S why I keep an eye on this page.

Oh and which 'nuances' do you think I understand wrong?
05:09:22 AM Jul 15th 2010
edited by
Sorry to cut in, but...

"When The Nostalgia Critic reviewed the first Pokemon movie, he stated at the beginning that he never watched the animated series, which is why his negative review of it didn't caused such a large Internet Backdraft."

Yes, it did?! At the very least, I'm sure it caused a Backdraft. He was also very clear that he was only familiar with the 1987 Ninja Turtles cartoon and the live action movies while reviewing 2007's TMNT. Fans reacted harshly (and not just to the Mako comment, long story, not relevent to the matter at hand) to that too.
05:44:58 AM Jul 15th 2010
edited by Typhoon
"such a large Internet Backdraft."

"such a large"

Of course it did start a Internet Backdraft. But it never was as big as the ones that Matthew started. The Bacdraft would be MUCH larger if he'd put a negative review of the Japanese version.

And he even apologized for the Mako comment, repeatedly. Have you ever seen Matthew to apologize for anything?
06:09:34 AM Jul 15th 2010
Well, for one thing, one generally forms plurals by adding s and possessives by adding 's, thus: "accusing others" and "Matthew's forum," rather than the other way around. And "only few other" instead of "only a few other" is unusual (I didn't say "wrong," did I?).

I don't say pages should be written entirely by the fans, for the fans. I do say that one should not deliberately outrage the fans.

I have every right to accuse others of bias if I believe they have displayed bias. I believe you have. I believe most people who look at this page would agree with me. I also have a bias, but, as Redcloak said of Xykon, at least I cop to it — and I try to make allowances for it. You won't even admit you have one. Again, let the average reader judge.

I am beginning to think we need to call in a site moderator.
06:32:15 AM Jul 15th 2010
edited by Typhoon
Well I think I've fixed all these 'nuances'.

And no, you didn't say 'wrong', It's just that I'm starting to smell yet another Ad hominem (like the one you used on Shredninja).

BTW, I'm from Eastern Europe. [1]

Depaderico has just now added a PERFECT review of CM. Compare it to the vulgar mess that is your (and iwintheinternets?'s) 'review'. I especially recommend you to read Jumpingzombie's comment on you rant.

And what do you mean by 'outraging the fans'?

I honestly thought that we could still reach some kind of consensus. Your edit to the 'Hatedom' example was much better than my poor attempts. If you really think that this page needs the attention of a moderator, then go call one.
07:39:11 AM Jul 15th 2010
I agree with you, Depaderico did a fine job on his review. I have also already admitted that my "review" was nothing but a rant. Why should it have been anything else? It's not like I was being paid to write a real review in a respected literary gazette. MST3K Mantra.

By outraging the fans, I mean, "deliberately saying things which are likely to offend them greatly."

Again, compliments on your very good English. I certainly mean no disparagement of your intelligence, though I might suggest you might bear in mind that you could conceivably have misunderstood a certain idiom, such as the "quite a few" one I used before, before you make a change in other people's entries.

I think you have misunderstood my criticism of Shredninja. I disparaged him exactly in terms of his use of language, which was exactly the topic under consideration. That is not an "ad hominem." It would have been an "ad hominem" if I had said, "Shredninja can't speak proper English, so obviously he knows nothing about anime." What I actually said was, "Shredninja can't speak proper English, so I do not accept him as an authority on the meaning of a common English word like 'genre.'" For the rest, he seems rather a pleasant young man, with an enthusiasm for a particular thing which I don't happen to share. That's all.

By the way, I'm sorry if I give the impression of being pompous and condescending. It's not intentional.
08:50:13 AM Jul 15th 2010
edited by Typhoon
—By outraging the fans, I mean, "deliberately saying things which are likely to offend them greatly." —

You see, this is exactly why I kept mentioning your review. You wrote that you can't believe that anyone can like such a horrible movie and ended it screaming 'BUT IT STILL SUCKS'. I'm sure that will definitely 'outrage the fans' of said movie. So did iwintheinternets?'s review outraged fans of CM, when he hoped that Matthew dies. Reviews are supposed to be, well, 'reviews'. The reviews section here are not for people to partake in 'Take Thats' and venting their emotions against other people. I don't want people to write 'proffesional' reviews, but I'd like if there was atleast some decency in them. Otherwise this place will only become more unpleasant. Perhaps that's also why I dislike Matthews reviews. I guess I'm really biased against Matthew. I just hated it when Gibberingtroper decided to put me in the same bag as iwintheinternets, which is why I was so against you labeling me as 'biased'.

I guess we all should take a chill pill. Starting with me.
04:32:50 PM Aug 2nd 2010
edited by T-Jack
*blink* Well, I guess if we ever need any evidence for the Love It or Hate It entry, we can just link to this page...
11:01:34 AM Aug 5th 2010
edited by Tannhaeuser
Gibbering Troper, I don't know that we do Confused Matthew a service by deleting all accusations of Completely Missing the Point and You Fail Logic Forever. I think it's fair to indicate that those are only opinions, and even to point out how they may be baseless, but I don't think it's quite fair to deny that some people have made the accusation. Of course, knowing that I am biased in favor of CM, I may have a tendency to go too far the other way in an effort to be fair — but I would submit the idea to your sense of fair play, and await any counterarguments with some interest.
06:43:34 PM Oct 25th 2010
I'm leaving the completely missing the point part alone now, its wrong, he does get it (except anime), he just doesn't connect with it the way the people who made that post do. Its an opinion post. But I'm leaving that alone.

You fail logic forever had to go. There's just no basis for it at all. He may not "get" anime, he may occasionally miss something in his research (though his reviews are more about how he felt about the movie when he first watched it so the research usually doesn't matter) but his logic is generally valid based on his premises. Its the premises people object too.

And I went and clipped out all the instances of pot holing of the word "Understatement" Its cruft. Just say what you're going to say in a simple and direct way. Don't give me "A fair case could be made that (at the very least) a VERY large number of people [[Understatement hate Matthew]]

Just say "Matthew has a hatedom" or "Some people hate Matthew." "Some" is neutral. Some can be a lot or a little and the fact is, you don't know if its "many" or "most" likewise we don't know that its a "shrill few" which would be my personal suspicion. Lets just say "some".

You might be able to say "Matthew got a ton of hate mail" if Matthew himself indicates that (and he has not shied away from acknowledging his critics.) But you don't have access to the guy's inbox so if he doesn't say it, you don't know it.
06:51:57 PM Oct 25th 2010
Keep in mind here too, he's gone against a movie I loved. He disliked Star Trek 2009 which I loved. I disagreed with his positions, I even went to his site and spelled it out for him why I disagreed with his assessment.

But when it comes down to it, its differences in opinion. Matthew thought it was illogical for Nero to blow up Vulcan just because Spock didn't get to Romulus in time to help. I felt that he was being driven by extreme grief. He lost everything he loved and, not being a nice guy to begin with, he lashed out against a racial enemy. But I'm not going to call him a moron just for disagreeing with me. Why? Because his arguments were reasonable, and I could understand that being a nagging point in his head in the theater.
04:10:55 PM May 28th 2010
Okay so if Confused Matthew criticizes any big name he is automatically a Small Name, Big Ego? I suppose all those people who criticize the president (any president, any party, any group of people) is a Small Name, Big Ego. We tropers are Small Name, Big Ego when we go after Seltzer and Friedberg or Uwe Boll or Michael Bay.

Granted, Roger Ebert has been a critic for a long time and is pretty widely known but I could go after him and I'm not a small name big ego.

Matthew did not say "Mr Ebert, I am a better critic than you." That would warrant the "Small Name, Big Ego" label. He said "Mr Ebert, I can't believe you treated this movie as if it was some big deal. You mislabeled the movie when it was just a chase flick." Granted, he was angry about it and used language but it was all anger that Ebert had not, in Matthew's opinion, done his job.

This article needs some attention from an unbiased moderator.
10:31:54 AM Jun 2nd 2010
Well, I would say that it counts since it's saying that Matthew's opinion about a movie is better than Ebert's.
10:10:26 AM Jul 1st 2010
Matthew specifically makes his point by applying Ebert's sound bites from the review of another chase flick to this chase flick. All he's saying is that Ebert is being inconsistent and, in the process, Matthew thinks that got this movie more attention than it deserved.

The true sign of a Small Name, Big Ego is when they think they're more important and when they think their word is the end all. Matthew doesn't think that. He knows he has to justify his positions so he at least tries to do that in his reviews (his emotional outbursts are him trying to reproduce the mood he had when he was watching the movie to show his audience the effect the movie had as it was playing.)
10:24:04 AM Jul 1st 2010
Gibbering Troper is correct. The example mentioned is really more of a Take That! than a Small Name, Big Ego.

Also, Gibbering, as far as "unbiased moderator" goes, pretty much anyone can do that. Maybe you should look into our Page Guardian initiative- it's open to pretty much everybody.
11:09:46 AM Jul 1st 2010
No Limit is right. I'd recommend you to re-read Gerkuma's review on Matthew:

-"You're allowed to consider someone inconsistent, or even a hypocrite but we still hit the same problem. You are judging a person ON A FILM. You are inferring that someone is a bad person because they liked a movie that you didn't, regardless of the nuances that are put on it. I personally find that a hurtful thing to imply about anyone. "-
07:25:46 AM Oct 26th 2011
He was criticizing Ebert's performance in his duties, he was expressing his anger at Ebert. He was not calling Ebert a bad person.
04:17:08 PM Nov 26th 2012
he said he's either an idiot or a liar
Collapse/Expand Topics