TV Tropes Org
site search
The Nostalgia Chick back to reviews
Comments
Usual Attempt At 'Nostalgia' Humor
Lindsey Ellis, better known as 'The Nostalgia Chick,' strikes again by continuing her trend of pandering to fans with ill-conceived humor.

Ellis recently critiqued fictional Disney titles and sequels in a parody of actual Disney sequel DTV releases. While these films are generally derided as terrible, they are in fact appreciated by a significant subset of Disney fans and acknowledged as having merits on this very wiki. This demonstrates a poor understanding of Disney and its fandom from Ellis, which is an all too common issue in her critiques.

One such fictional film was "Disney's Anne Frank," as discussed on this page. The jokes on the film were disrespectful and in poor taste, which is the same type of humor exercised here.

All-in-all, watch out for her future reviews. She won't be getting any better.
Why the heck is this flagged? Please don't tell me it's "Negativity is bad", because if that's the case, that defeats the point of reviews. And really, these joke pages aren't funny, so I don't see anything wrong with reviewing the original context.

That being said:

"While these films are generally derided as terrible, they are in fact enjoyed by nearly every Disney fan. This demonstrates a poor understanding of the subject from Ellis, which is an all too common issue."

This is simply wrong. Disney fans aren't any different from the general public in that regard.
comment #12517 Cliche 26th Jan 12 (edited by: Cliche)
While a general fan of Disney films might not like the DTV sequels, if you take an Aladdin fan, for example, they'll tell you that Return of Jafar and The Forty Thieves are great.

Almost every page on this very wiki seems to acknowledge that so-and-so DTV sequel "isn't that bad" and has its fans. They obviously don't hit the same mark of quality as the originals, but the idea that they're universally reviled is false.
comment #12518 BlueMoonMario 27th Jan 12 (edited by: BlueMoonMario)
Oh yeah, I did love the Aladdin sequels.

In context, I don't think the Nostalgia Chick's joke was all that bad. It was brief and it actually had a point. But I couldn't agree more on your assessment of this page. Tasteless, disrespectful and not funny. How do you justify making these kind of jokes about a young girl who died a horrific death, along with six million of her people?
comment #12521 Albertosaurus 27th Jan 12
Obviously, it's not intended as a joke about Anne Frank, but about Disney's treatment of historical matters and about the phenomenon of Disneyfication in general (which probably is not a monopoly of the Disney Co.).
comment #12524 LordGro 27th Jan 12
Putting aside the taste issue for a moment—though I agree, this isn't a Holocaust joke—what this review basically says is "the Chick called the Disney sequels bad, but people like them, therefore she is wrong."

Critiques are critiques for a reason. Why should it matter one iota what other people think of the Disney sequels? She's well within her rights to call them awful.
comment #12525 Wackd 27th Jan 12
Critiques are critiques for a reason. Why should it matter one iota what other people think of the Disney sequels? She's well within her rights to call them awful.

It's called criticism. Go live in North Korea if you want to see what it actually feels like to be denied freedom of speech.
comment #12527 eveil 27th Jan 12
I suggest that as a new Godwins Law, we shall have Kim Jung-Il's Law.

Aside from that, I really don't like this page. I understand it's all a joke, but it's like making a joke about Disney making a 9/11 movie by making an entire page of those jokes. I didn't really hate it in Ellis' video because it had context in being compared to Poccahontas (Although the real life story in that case, the Anglo-Powhattan Wars, was still nowhere near as horrendous as the Holocaust), but here it's just on its own being an over-the-top parody of something nobody likes anyway while still being horribly offensive by itself.

It's an ugly page created for an ugly satire of an ugly movie, and it's been pieced together by tropers who were competing to come up with the most offensive Dead Baby Comedy.
comment #12536 Scardoll 27th Jan 12
...What did I say that warranted that? I'm legitimately confused here.

What I was referring to was this:

While these films are generally derided as terrible, they are in fact appreciated by a significant subset of Disney fans and acknowledged as having merits on this very wiki. This demonstrates a poor understanding of Disney and its fandom from Ellis, which is an all too common issue in her critiques.

which basically says that Lindsey shouldn't have critiqued these films because some people like them. The statement makes no sense.
comment #12545 Wackd 28th Jan 12 (edited by: BlueMoonMario)
which basically says that Lindsey shouldn't have critiqued these films because some people like them. The statement makes no sense.

I did not say that Lindsey shouldn't critique those films. My point is that she and others on the TGWTG website shouldn't critique/review things that they have no familiarity or understanding of.

Lindsey was bashed for not understanding Lynch's Dune film while Doug chose to review Pokemon: The First Movie despite having no familiarity for it. This demonstrates that they are poor critics.
comment #12577 BlueMoonMario 30th Jan 12 (edited by: BlueMoonMario)
And Doug only did Pokemon because he got so much pressure. He's much firmer about not doing anime or stuff he doesn't know anymore.
comment #12578 emeriin 30th Jan 12
Not knowing that some people like something you're reviewing is not the same as lacking familiarity with a franchise, and it shouldn't stop you from being able to say something's crap.

Let's say, for example, that I review [insert show here], and I say it's the worst show I've ever seen. Just awful. But I'm unaware that it has a massive fanbase. Should that new knowledge influence my review? Should I say it's not crap because people like it?

Now let's say I review a random episode of [insert show here], and I say it's a bad episode because I'm unfamiliar with the plot and the characters and therefore can't follow it, and I give Headscratchers pretaining to stuff that's been explained. Then I find out about the rest of the series. Should that new knowledge influence my review? Should I say it's not crap because I have background?

These two senarios are not equal. Not knowing people like something is not the same as having "no familiarity" with it. Chick was well within her bounds to critique the Disney films, and whether or not she's aware people disagree with her shouldn't enter into it. The Pokemon The First Movie scenario is not comparable at all.
comment #12580 Wackd 30th Jan 12
One of the appeals of reviewers like Nostalgia Critic and Nostalgia Chick is that they do review movies that people have, well, nostalgia for, and sometimes these movies have a giant fan base. It makes them a little more controversial and it gets them more views. I didn't agree with Lindsey's review of the Dune movie because she called the book boring as well, but she's entitled to her own opinions. I haven't seen all of the Dune movie but from what I did see...it wasn't my cup of tea. I really liked the book though. I think many of her reviews are absolutely hilarious, and her criticisms of Disney movies especially are very valid. I agree with most of them, and I love Disney. Her favorite movie is Beauty and the Beast, a Disney movie, so it's not like she universally despises Disney products. I agree with most of her reviews, but I actually don't mind when critics bash on stuff I like as long as its hilarious in the process, and I personally find her reviews hilarious.

I'm ambivalent towards this page. The original joke, in context, made sense because it was making fun of Disney's tendency to take traumatic events from fairy tales and from history and make them happy and kid friendly. It's a joke that's also been said by other people (It's in TV tropes somewhere that a comedy show made a joke about Disney would take something as dark as Hunchback of Notredame and turn it into a kids movie- which of course Disney later actually did.) And no, it's not something exclusive to Disney. Don Bluth's Anastasia just gets really disturbing once you know the real events and the political upheaval that lead towards it. But anyway, saying that Disney would make a movie about Anne Frank and make it happy is just a hyperbole to make a point. The joke was making fun of DISNEY not the Holocaust and not Anne Frank or the horrific tragedy that was the Holocaust.
comment #12638 LaCapitana 3rd Feb 12 (edited by: LaCapitana)
^ Somewhat missing the point of your post, but Hunchback isn't really what I'd call a kid's movie. Just look at the first five minutes; a mother gets her head smashed and her baby is nearly killed right after.
comment #12639 emeriin 3rd Feb 12
Yes, the original joke was about making fun of Disney. But is that really what's going on with this page? Is this about criticizing Disney or about how hilarious this movie would be? The original joke, I would argue, is being lost and buried under heaps of increasing offensiveness.
comment #12644 Albertosaurus 3rd Feb 12 (edited by: Wackd)
From my position, the page seems fine. All of the things on it are pertaining to the disneyfication part,and none of it means to in any way disgrace the horrible tragedy. Would we be having this discussion if she had picked something less well-known, as Disney already has(Disney's Notredame is at most a family film, and Bluth's version of Anastasia-oh god...). Really, the entire thing is harmless, and I actually find it quite funny, and the point of those things is that they aren't hilarious-they're a dark-humour-ish horrific. And thus hilarious.
comment #12995 Dodestar 28th Feb 12
This really doesn't feel like a review, it feels more like complaining that Lindsey is wrong because she has some decent points about Disney and their mostly shitty DTD flicks. A review would be to point out that she's a biased reviewer, often leaning way towards the negative. (That would be because it's easier to make fun of things that we either hate or that are geniuinely bad, such as the Room and she's a comedic reviewer, not Siskal and Ebert) This isn't a review, it's more like a forum topic.

In her defense, she doesn't inherently bash all sequels, just the ones that are DTD(which is most of them), as these are shameless attempts to wring out a bit more cash from a story without honestly doing work. Several of the sequels are in fact, the same plot as the original, just with the main characters' children; Lady and the Tramp 2 and the Little Mermaid 2 being the most obvious examples.

There are good sequels, such as Rescuers Down Under(which was not only good but better than the original because it actually had a budget and was original compared to the first film), the Lion King 2 and (barely) Pocahontas 2.

As to the Disney's Anne Frank thing, as Dode and many others point out, it's a shot against Disney taking tragic points in time and twisting history to make a light-hearted kid's story. Mulan, Pocahontas, Anastasia, and the Hunchback of Notre Dame, are four different movies that alter history or the original story to make it more kid friendly.
comment #13026 Nivaris 1st Mar 12
Lindsay a critic derided the majority of Disney DTV as terrible just like most people would. She is a horrible critic for doing so. Insane Troll Logic FTW!
comment #15613 jbiebz 1st Aug 12
In order to post comments, you need to Get Known
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy