Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It's most likely because there's a difference between a Disney-esque movie about someone (usually a princess) dreaming about a better life (or finding Prince Charming, whichever works best) and doing whatever they can to follow said dream despite the trials and tribulations (IE: Evil step-mothers, magical monsters that want to take over the kingdom, blah, blah, blah) and a movie about a goofy troll that is pretty much 90% "Ooh, look at all the sugary sweet fun adventures we'll have." BarneyTheDinosaur-esque "Let's imagine/dream we're on a flying boat!" {{Glurge}} with hardly any conflict at all (The evil troll-queen only makes up for a small percentage of the film's length, and don't get me started on the "my parent's don't let me do what I want" psuedo-subplot...) Following dreams works for the former (IE: Disney/Disney-esque princesses and whatnot) because there's a ''valid'' reason for the whole "follow your dreams" {{Aesop}} and that there's real conflict and reward due to said dreams (IE: "I dream that I'll someday find Prince Charming because then I'll be free from my wicked witch step-mother"). ATICP, on the other hand, has no such luxury since the "dreams" have no bearing on the plot, have little to no relation with the (few) conflicts in the movie, and honestly don't have any real major impact on CharacterDevelopment either. The kidds in ATICP could dream about freakin' talking pancakes and it'd wouldn't change a damn thing in the plot.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** And we weren't very interesting either. Stupid baby toddlers that can't do anything but cry and giggle make for shitty protagonists.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 172 (click to see context) from:
** Furthermore, he '''has''' been critical of nostalgic movies and tv shows before. The Drug Cartoon Special, Captain Planet, the live-action TMNT movies, The Wizard, the Super Mario Brothers movie, the Top 11 Drug PSAs....look just ''go'' to his website and look at the [[http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic list]] of Nostalgia Critic reviews.
to:
** Furthermore, he '''has''' been critical of nostalgic movies and tv shows before. The Drug Cartoon Special, Captain Planet, the live-action TMNT movies, The Wizard, the Super Mario Brothers movie, the Top 11 Drug PSAs....[=PSAs=]....look just ''go'' to his website and look at the [[http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic list]] of Nostalgia Critic reviews.
Changed line(s) 189 (click to see context) from:
* Something that bugs me is the amount of times that NC [[HaveIMentionedThatImHeterosexualToday feels the need to point out his attraction to women]]. Some examples include the Barb Wire review (just....the Barb Wire review) and pretty much any time he acts like a giddy school boy whenever he sees hints of LesYay. Am I alone in thinking that occasionally it gets to be a bit much?
to:
* Something that bugs me is the amount of times that NC [[HaveIMentionedThatImHeterosexualToday [[HaveIMentionedThatIAmHeterosexualToday feels the need to point out his attraction to women]]. Some examples include the Barb Wire review (just....the Barb Wire review) and pretty much any time he acts like a giddy school boy whenever he sees hints of LesYay. Am I alone in thinking that occasionally it gets to be a bit much?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Weren't we ALL "stupid baby toddlers" at least once in our lives?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
that isn't a just bugs me. that's... that's just a bizarre question. He's a grown man, of course he drinks now and then
Deleted line(s) 186 (click to see context) :
* Does Doug drink at all in RL, or is it all just acting?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Does that make her less annoying? Having stupid baby toddlers act like stupid baby toddlers is still annoying. Because all they can do is cry, giggle, and say meaningless rubbish. They could have solved the problem by simply making her not a baby.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 189,190 (click to see context) from:
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 154 (click to see context) from:
* Why was there a need for the NCs endless rant about "dreaming doesn't make things come true" in the review of ATrollInCentralPark? Seriously. He bitches about this forever - in a fucking kids movie. I don't want to defend the movie, but I've seen eleventy zillion bajillion movies that teach an aesop about the power of dreams. This is an established kids-movie lesson. And before someone tells me "You don't get it, he's complaining that the movie portrays dreams as being automatically fulfilled wishes" - it's clear that the movie is NOT intended to make children believe that their dreams grant instant wish fulfillment.
to:
* Why was there a need for the NCs endless rant about "dreaming doesn't make things come true" in the review of ATrollInCentralPark? Seriously. He bitches about this forever - in a fucking kids movie. I don't want to defend the movie, but I've seen eleventy zillion bajillion movies that teach an aesop Aesop about the power of dreams. This is an established kids-movie lesson. And before someone tells me "You don't get it, he's complaining that the movie portrays dreams as being automatically fulfilled wishes" - it's clear that the movie is NOT intended to make children believe that their dreams grant instant wish fulfillment.
Changed line(s) 187 (click to see context) from:
to:
* Not to defend the travesty that is ATrollInCentralPark too much, but he criticizes the dialogue given to Rosie, saying it's "stupid, repetitive, annoying" etc. Um, Rosie was what, 1, maybe 2 years old? Since when are toddlers known for being great philosophers? Methinks he was just nitpicking there (which given the movie, wasn't really necessary).
* Something that bugs me is the amount of times that NC [[HaveIMentionedThatImHeterosexualToday feels the need to point out his attraction to women]]. Some examples include the Barb Wire review (just....the Barb Wire review) and pretty much any time he acts like a giddy school boy whenever he sees hints of LesYay. Am I alone in thinking that occasionally it gets to be a bit much?
* Something that bugs me is the amount of times that NC [[HaveIMentionedThatImHeterosexualToday feels the need to point out his attraction to women]]. Some examples include the Barb Wire review (just....the Barb Wire review) and pretty much any time he acts like a giddy school boy whenever he sees hints of LesYay. Am I alone in thinking that occasionally it gets to be a bit much?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 186 (click to see context) from:
to:
* Does Doug drink at all in RL, or is it all just acting?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 56 (click to see context) from:
**** That's another thing: he only compares adaptations to other adaptations. Now that's fine if you just compare two adaptations - but it never seems like he gives a shit about the original source material. In his Batman-comparisons, he says that Ledger's Joker was all the previous Jokers combined, like the Joker from that adaptation, or that adaptation - what's strangely absent is the joker from, say, THE COMICS! He also calls Burton's Batman "the original" for crying out loud! Face it, he doesn't give a shit.
to:
**** That's another thing: he only compares adaptations to other adaptations. Now that's fine if you just compare two adaptations - but it never seems like he gives a shit about the original source material. In his Batman-comparisons, he says that Ledger's Joker was all the previous Jokers combined, like the Joker from that adaptation, or that adaptation - what's strangely absent is the joker from, say, THE COMICS! He also calls Burton's Batman "the original" for crying out loud! Face it, he doesn't give a shit.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** That's another thing: he only compares adaptations to other adaptations. Now that's fine if you just compare two adaptations - but it never seems like he gives a shit about the original source material. In his Batman-comparisons, he says that Ledger's Joker was all the previous Jokers combined, like the Joker from that adaptation, or that adaptation - what's strangely absent is the joker from, say, THE COMICS! He also calls Burton's Batman "the original" for crying out loud! Face it, he doesn't give a shit.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 184 (click to see context) from:
to:
** He was acting out how he thought the Sailor Moon enemies would react to the two minute or more transformation sequence before the fight.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** Maybe it's a character thing? Doug did say that the Critic is so cynical because he feels completely betrayed by the crappy stuff from his childhood. The message of the film ''would'' piss off anyone like that.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 147 (click to see context) from:
*** Hence the commas (it was a figure of speech, not to be taken too literally). My point is, in Burton's film, Charlie's goodness, purity, or whatever you care to call it, was rather shoved down the viewer's throat - more so than in Dahl's book, where it seemed a notch more understated. That's how I saw it, anyway.
to:
**** Yeah, he goes through so much agony that it makes him a saint when he wants to help his extremely poor family with no source of income (and no new one in sight) by selling a one-day-ticket to a chocolate factory (SeriousBusiness!) to people who have been shown to pay ludicrous amounts of money (like the ones needed to have a factory completely stop producing anything and going through a zillion chocolate bars they bought) for the chance of getting such a ticket? Man, I hate that kid and his willingness to sacrifice himself.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** But he doesn't complain about how it's really annoying and obnoxious - he complains about it for saying you can make your dreams come true.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 180 (click to see context) from:
to:
* 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?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
** Even funnier is the fact that Bakshi's version has Sauron look very much the same, only being shown behind a red curtain. As has been pointed out, he pretty much looks like a Knight Who Says Ni.
Changed line(s) 77 (click to see context) from:
* While I've come to accept and respect the fact that the man has very different taste from myself and doesn't always like films I liked, one thing still constantly eats at me: His top 20 videos had him say something along the lines of "I feel guilty placing a sci-fi superhero movie in the same list as a work of cinematic art." SciFiGhetto at its finest, folks.
to:
* While I've come to accept and respect the fact that the man has very different taste from myself and doesn't always like films I liked, one thing still constantly eats at me: His top 20 videos had him say something along the lines of "I feel guilty placing a sci-fi superhero movie in the same list as a work of cinematic art." SciFiGhetto at its finest, folks.
Changed line(s) 109 (click to see context) from:
*** Not necessarily. Singing teaches you how to have control over the tone, strenght and volume of your singing. It doesn't really help when you're doing erratic bursts of sound. There's also the fact that the Critic's tone of voice is not Doug's natural one. He's admitted to playing up the falsetto on the Critic's screams, and there's a clear difference when comparing with the commentaries. And trust me, there's no better way to rag up your voice than shout, scream or even talk loudly in a pitch not natural to you. (I sing in a choir and have never lost my voice through that, but a good, long karate practise tends to rag it up ''really'' bad.)
to:
*** Not necessarily. Singing teaches you how to have control over the tone, strenght strength and volume of your singing. It doesn't really help when you're doing erratic bursts of sound. There's also the fact that the Critic's tone of voice is not Doug's natural one. He's admitted to playing up the falsetto on the Critic's screams, and there's a clear difference when comparing with the commentaries. And trust me, there's no better way to rag up your voice than shout, scream or even talk loudly in a pitch not natural to you. (I sing in a choir and have never lost my voice through that, but a good, long karate practise tends to rag it up ''really'' bad.)
Changed line(s) 119 (click to see context) from:
*** Four days of of shooting. There had to be preperations for all contributors to arrive, arrangements with Kevin Baugh and working on script. Then there was need of editing, adding music and fanart. So yeah.
to:
*** Four days of of shooting. There had to be preperations preparations for all contributors to arrive, arrangements with Kevin Baugh and working on script. Then there was need of editing, adding music and fanart. So yeah.
Changed line(s) 137 (click to see context) from:
* His Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Willy Wonka comparison-review. While I can point out quite a few things biased or wrong with that comparison, did he even read the books like he said? Most of what he ranted about were taken straight from the books.
to:
** His reading is so great that it can cure any illness?
* His Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Willy Wonka comparison-review. While I can point out quite a few things biased or wrong with that comparison, did he even read the books like he said? Most of what he ranted about were taken straight from the books.
* His Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Willy Wonka comparison-review. While I can point out quite a few things biased or wrong with that comparison, did he even read the books like he said? Most of what he ranted about were taken straight from the books.
Changed line(s) 150 (click to see context) from:
* Why was there a need for the NCs endless rant about "dreaming doesn't make things come true" in the review of ATrollInCentralPark? Seriously. He bitches about this forever - in a fucking kids movie. I don't want to defend the movie, but I've seen eleventy zillion bajillion movies that teach an aesop about the power of dreams. This is an established kids-movie lesson. And before someone tells me "You don't get it, he's complaining that the movie portrays dreams as being automatically fulfilled wishes" - it's clear that the movie is NOT intended to make children believe that their dreams grant instant wish fulfillment.
to:
* Why was there a need for the NCs endless rant about "dreaming doesn't make things come true" in the review of ATrollInCentralPark? Seriously. He bitches about this forever - in a fucking kids movie. I don't want to defend the movie, but I've seen eleventy zillion bajillion movies that teach an aesop about the power of dreams. This is an established kids-movie lesson. And before someone tells me "You don't get it, he's complaining that the movie portrays dreams as being automatically fulfilled wishes" - it's clear that the movie is NOT intended to make children believe that their dreams grant instant wish fulfillment.
Changed line(s) 177 (click to see context) from:
to:
** That's how his reviews operate. He goes through a review angrily and sarcastically, and the end of the review is when he mentions things that he ''does'' think are well done or were good tries. The Chick has her own way of doing things, which evolved from when she followed the Critic's style. And and to this troper, the fact that he's so angry means that when he actually does acknowledge in a review that something was done well (like Turtles Forever or Gargoyles or his Top Eleven lists), it's that much more indicative of how he enjoys them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 35,50 (click to see context) :
* Why would the Critic have an copy of Super Smash Bros. Brawl with Pikachu on the cover? I thought he hated "Pokemon". He complained that the franchise had dumb things like animals beating each other up, yet by playing this game he ''partakes'' in it. So, watching a visualization is animal cruelty but ''doing it yourself'' is okay? What a hypocrite.
** Training animals to beat each other =/= Playing a videogame about it (aka "I'm a GTA player but I never killed anybody").
** He hated ''the movie''. He never said anything about the games or the franchise in general. Personally, this troper absolutely LOATHED the movie(s) and the animated series but was thoroughly entertained by the games.
** He didn't dislike the Pokemon movie because it included animals fighting. He disliked it because it was entirely based on the premise of animals fighting, while also (hypocritically) attempting to have a heavy-handed "fighting is bad!" {{Aesop}}. Maybe it worked better in the original Japanese, but in the dub, that particular scene was thoroughly cringe-worthy -- and I ''liked'' the movie.
** It was slightly better in the Japanese version, but still cringe-worthy. In the Japanese version, the characters weren't preaching about not fighting, but preaching about how the originals and clones shouldn't fight over superiority since they're all living creatures. Like with the dub's anti-fighting message, the "living creatures" one was repeated over and over and over again.
** Um, you do realized that they're are more characters in Super Smash Brothers Brawl than just Pokemon, right?
*** As above, the series has 35 characters in all, a number of them (Mario, Link, Zelda, Donkey Kong...) dating from Doug's childhood and early teen years. Super Smash Bros. is not, by any stretch of the word, a ''Pokémon'' game.
** He doesn't hate Pokémon. He was just at the wrong age when it came out to get into the series. That doesn't mean he can't play Smash Bros.
** To paraphrase, the Critic doesn't hate Pokemon, he doesn't ''know'' Pokemon. As he said in the movie review, it came out when he was too old to get into it and thus he was never able to figure it out. Probably to him, all Pikachu was in SSB was a little yellow thing that shot electricity.
*** Heck, at the very end of his reviews, he even makes a statement essentially saying that Pokémon isn't any stupider than the shows from his childhood. And man, calling him a hypocrite for this? Way to be judgmental towards someone you don't know over an incredibly insignificant detail.
** Even if these weren't all valid explanations, the simplest is, it was explicitly stated to be a Christmas Present. Everyone gets gifts they don't like once in a while.
** He didn't say he didn't like Smash Bros. He said he was disappointed that he didn't get '''''Mario Kart'''''.
*** I'm confused, why does he even want Mario Kart Wii? It's got terrible rubber-banding, something which I got sick of and sold days after I bought it.
*** Maybe he wanted Mario Kart because HE LIKES MARIO KART!
**** But...the rubber-banding...good lord, his preference for Mario Kart Wii over Brawl to me is like if I were to say I prefer Sonic 2006 over Sonic Unleashed. Did he even TRY Brawl?
**** The joke wasn't that he prefered mario kart over brawl, it was that he was whining that he didn't get more stuff. Besides, Mario Kart Wii was considered one of the best racing games of the year, show some 'spect to the mario man.
** Training animals to beat each other =/= Playing a videogame about it (aka "I'm a GTA player but I never killed anybody").
** He hated ''the movie''. He never said anything about the games or the franchise in general. Personally, this troper absolutely LOATHED the movie(s) and the animated series but was thoroughly entertained by the games.
** He didn't dislike the Pokemon movie because it included animals fighting. He disliked it because it was entirely based on the premise of animals fighting, while also (hypocritically) attempting to have a heavy-handed "fighting is bad!" {{Aesop}}. Maybe it worked better in the original Japanese, but in the dub, that particular scene was thoroughly cringe-worthy -- and I ''liked'' the movie.
** It was slightly better in the Japanese version, but still cringe-worthy. In the Japanese version, the characters weren't preaching about not fighting, but preaching about how the originals and clones shouldn't fight over superiority since they're all living creatures. Like with the dub's anti-fighting message, the "living creatures" one was repeated over and over and over again.
** Um, you do realized that they're are more characters in Super Smash Brothers Brawl than just Pokemon, right?
*** As above, the series has 35 characters in all, a number of them (Mario, Link, Zelda, Donkey Kong...) dating from Doug's childhood and early teen years. Super Smash Bros. is not, by any stretch of the word, a ''Pokémon'' game.
** He doesn't hate Pokémon. He was just at the wrong age when it came out to get into the series. That doesn't mean he can't play Smash Bros.
** To paraphrase, the Critic doesn't hate Pokemon, he doesn't ''know'' Pokemon. As he said in the movie review, it came out when he was too old to get into it and thus he was never able to figure it out. Probably to him, all Pikachu was in SSB was a little yellow thing that shot electricity.
*** Heck, at the very end of his reviews, he even makes a statement essentially saying that Pokémon isn't any stupider than the shows from his childhood. And man, calling him a hypocrite for this? Way to be judgmental towards someone you don't know over an incredibly insignificant detail.
** Even if these weren't all valid explanations, the simplest is, it was explicitly stated to be a Christmas Present. Everyone gets gifts they don't like once in a while.
** He didn't say he didn't like Smash Bros. He said he was disappointed that he didn't get '''''Mario Kart'''''.
*** I'm confused, why does he even want Mario Kart Wii? It's got terrible rubber-banding, something which I got sick of and sold days after I bought it.
*** Maybe he wanted Mario Kart because HE LIKES MARIO KART!
**** But...the rubber-banding...good lord, his preference for Mario Kart Wii over Brawl to me is like if I were to say I prefer Sonic 2006 over Sonic Unleashed. Did he even TRY Brawl?
**** The joke wasn't that he prefered mario kart over brawl, it was that he was whining that he didn't get more stuff. Besides, Mario Kart Wii was considered one of the best racing games of the year, show some 'spect to the mario man.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
So the nostalgia critic is wrong because YOU don't like the game?
Deleted line(s) 51 (click to see context) :
**** I am...by playing the DS version. Which is more fun. Than the rubber-banding AI of the Wii. Where I lose A LOT BECAUSE OF THE FUCKING CPU. And ended up having to sell the damn game days later, and got Brawl instead, and still enjoy to this day while I wish Miyamoto never conceived the Wii version of what should have stopped on DS.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 51 (click to see context) from:
**** I am...by playing the DS version. Which is more fun. Than the rubber-banding AI of the Wii. Where I lose A LOT BECAUSE OF THE FUCKING CPU. And ended up having to sell the damn game days later, and got Brawl instead.
to:
**** I am...by playing the DS version. Which is more fun. Than the rubber-banding AI of the Wii. Where I lose A LOT BECAUSE OF THE FUCKING CPU. And ended up having to sell the damn game days later, and got Brawl instead.instead, and still enjoy to this day while I wish Miyamoto never conceived the Wii version of what should have stopped on DS.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** I am...by playing the DS version. Which is more fun. Than the rubber-banding AI of the Wii. Where I lose A LOT BECAUSE OF THE FUCKING CPU. And ended up having to sell the damn game days later, and got Brawl instead.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 192 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Huh? Okay, last ten episodes. Troll In Central Park - hated it and yelled, but gave good points on how it talked down to children. Theodore Rex - no yelling and talked about how the producers put no effort into it. Top 11 Coolest Cliches - self-explanatory. Hook - GuiltyPleasure film, made fun of it but loved the first two acts. Independence Day - had an epic crush on Will Smith and didn't like it, but no yelling. The Room - did a rageful (but so awesome) MontyPython rant on the death scene but said it was worth checking out. The Phantom - no yelling, has a crush on Zeta Jones and makes fun of the stupidity. Zeus and Roxanne - didn't like it, but no yelling and made good points on how silly it was. Animaniacs Tribute - clearly having an awesome time. The Flinstones Movie - didn't like it, but no yelling and at least respected the show for having a dysfunctional family. Maybe try and watch them properly next time?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 191 (click to see context) from:
to:
* I take issue with the fact that seemingly every review he's done recently just bashes the crap out of its subject. Granted, not everything we're nostalgic about was great, but he seems to be deliberately picking movies to vent his spleen at. He's also not very deep in his criticisms. Lately there's been much more shouting and impersonations of the most offending characters rather than any serious analysis. At least when TheNostalgiaChick thinks something's bad she gives a well-reasoned and intelligent appraisal of why it's bad. Doug just drops a ClusterFBomb and yells at the movie.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** The joke wasn't that he prefered mario kart over brawl, it was that he was whining that he didn't get more stuff. Besides, Mario Kart Wii was considered one of the best racing games of the year, show some 'spect to the mario man.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 49 (click to see context) from:
**** But...the rubber-banding...
to:
**** But...the rubber-banding...good lord, his preference for Mario Kart Wii over Brawl to me is like if I were to say I prefer Sonic 2006 over Sonic Unleashed. Did he even TRY Brawl?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Not necessarily. Singing teaches you how to have control over the tone, strenght and volume of your singing. It doesn't really help when you're doing erratic bursts of sound. There's also the fact that the Critic's tone of voice is not Doug's natural one. He's admitted to playing up the falsetto on the Critic's screams, and there's a clear difference when comparing with the commentaries. And trust me, there's no better way to rag up your voice than shout, scream or even talk loudly in a pitch not natural to you. (I sing in a choir and have never lost my voice through that, but a good, long karate practise tends to rag it up ''really'' bad.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
True, but natter.
Changed line(s) 188 (click to see context) from:
* Half this page JustBugsMe. FanDumb and CompletelyMissingThePoint indeed.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*Half this page JustBugsMe. FanDumb and CompletelyMissingThePoint indeed.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
Click the edit button to start this new page.
to:
** He did see the Transformers-movie, he was just (presumably) too old to be affected by it.
*** My bad. Still, my argument remains the same.
**** Arguably, as an internet reviewer with a large audience of known proclivities, his biggest "fuck-up" was not foreseeing that his audience would have such an attachment to that moment while writing out the original list.
*** WHAT?! It's ''his'' Top 11. Why should he just give a generic list that the ''audience'' wants to hear?
*** Also, ''he's'' the funny one, not his audience, if his audience thinks thier childhood memories are such comedic gold, they should make thier own series instead of whining to the person who created this fantastic series to begin with.
** I very often get the impression that comedic "top [insert number here]" lists don't put as much thought to an accurate order as they do to [[RuleOfFunny what order creates the best comedic flow, writing-wise]].
*** Uh, yeah. Optimus Prime's death wasn't on the list full stop, because the Nostalgia Critic didn't think of it until after the flood of viewer mail. I know it's been a while, but didn't you watch it?
* Why did Doug censor the tits in his RedSonja review if he showed [[FanDisservice DuckTits]] earlier? Not to mention the stuff in some of his 5 Second Movies.
** Because Duck Tits are just too disgusting to warrant censorship. Plus, maybe he felt that Brigette Nielson's tits were too disgusting to be see by human eyes.
** The Duck Tits ''aren't real''. The crystal ball woman ''is real''. He wouldn't censor the statue of Venus De Milo either.
** Blip.tv, where the videos are hosted, has rules against nudity. Duck Tits don't count, I guess.
* 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.
* 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?"
** Most of their dialogue in the old shorts were brief [[NegativeContinuity non-canonical]] gags or in an episode that's SomethingCompletelyDifferent.
** Plus, he says that Tom & Jerry had "little to no voice actors" originally, so he's probably well aware of what he said.
* This has bugged me for a while... Why does the Nostalgia Critic say that Film/TheWizard 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.
* If everyone at Channel Awesome knows that Doug is a lousy speller, why in the heck is nobody proofreading his stuff? Maybe when he started as an independent YouTuber this was forgivable, but when you're making your living off this stuff and you have offices, I say you have the time to make sure there is ''never a typo ever ever again.''
** One, I bet he keeps it around as a joke. Two, he doesn't tell them unless he wants to collab them.
** Pretty lame joke. Collab with the Channel Awesome staff? I'm not talking about the other video producers, I'm talking about the support staff behind the scenes. In my view, the instant the TGWTG guys decided to have offices and make the website their careers, spelling errors officially became unacceptable. Typos belong in videos done by amateurs, not people making money off them.
*** I still got the impression that things were pretty loose, even if they were making money. Anyway, like said it seemed to be implied that fans found the typos funny and even thought they were deliberate at times (like the one at the end of ''AKidInKingArthursCourt''. And after the Critic pointed it out on the list of his top 11 screw-ups, viewers probably got even more attached to them.
** Even the most professional newspapers have a typo that goes through unnoticed here and there. And most people won't even notice it either.
*** The difference here is that the mistakes here are pretty amateur and could be easily spotted by fans, it wouldn't be on the Top 11 Fuckups list otherwise. (besides, who reads newspapers in 2010?)
*** Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. The format's ''dying'', it's not ''dead''.
* How could the critic say such great things about Siskel and Ebert when Ebert gave "Space Jam" 3 and a half stars yet the Critic blasted it? Ebert also hated "Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas", yet Doug thought it was better than "Citizen Kane". Ebert also gave "Brazil" a mere two stars while Doug thought it was the best movie of all time. What right does this guy have to say that he blasts us for liking SJ, yet there's clearly a very good critic who loves it?
** He thinks they are good critics =/= he always agrees with them.
*** In fact he basically says as much during his Siskel and Ebert review.
*** Exactly. This troper doesn't agree with NC a lot of the time, but I still love his reviews / think he's funny as hell.
** I think the question is why he praises them while slipping into outright FanHater mode on the things they like. I haven't seen his ''SpaceJam'' review, so I can't comment.
** RuleOfFunny. Doug isn't really that outspoken about kid's films. And obviously the character doesn't always follow [[ReviewsAreTheGospel Reviews as The Gospel]].
** [[CompletelyMissingThePoint His favorite movies are not what he considers to be the best movie of all time, they are just the movies he likes the most.]]
* Why would the Critic have an copy of Super Smash Bros. Brawl with Pikachu on the cover? I thought he hated "Pokemon". He complained that the franchise had dumb things like animals beating each other up, yet by playing this game he ''partakes'' in it. So, watching a visualization is animal cruelty but ''doing it yourself'' is okay? What a hypocrite.
** Training animals to beat each other =/= Playing a videogame about it (aka "I'm a GTA player but I never killed anybody").
** He hated ''the movie''. He never said anything about the games or the franchise in general. Personally, this troper absolutely LOATHED the movie(s) and the animated series but was thoroughly entertained by the games.
** He didn't dislike the Pokemon movie because it included animals fighting. He disliked it because it was entirely based on the premise of animals fighting, while also (hypocritically) attempting to have a heavy-handed "fighting is bad!" {{Aesop}}. Maybe it worked better in the original Japanese, but in the dub, that particular scene was thoroughly cringe-worthy -- and I ''liked'' the movie.
** It was slightly better in the Japanese version, but still cringe-worthy. In the Japanese version, the characters weren't preaching about not fighting, but preaching about how the originals and clones shouldn't fight over superiority since they're all living creatures. Like with the dub's anti-fighting message, the "living creatures" one was repeated over and over and over again.
** Um, you do realized that they're are more characters in Super Smash Brothers Brawl than just Pokemon, right?
*** As above, the series has 35 characters in all, a number of them (Mario, Link, Zelda, Donkey Kong...) dating from Doug's childhood and early teen years. Super Smash Bros. is not, by any stretch of the word, a ''Pokémon'' game.
** He doesn't hate Pokémon. He was just at the wrong age when it came out to get into the series. That doesn't mean he can't play Smash Bros.
** To paraphrase, the Critic doesn't hate Pokemon, he doesn't ''know'' Pokemon. As he said in the movie review, it came out when he was too old to get into it and thus he was never able to figure it out. Probably to him, all Pikachu was in SSB was a little yellow thing that shot electricity.
*** Heck, at the very end of his reviews, he even makes a statement essentially saying that Pokémon isn't any stupider than the shows from his childhood. And man, calling him a hypocrite for this? Way to be judgmental towards someone you don't know over an incredibly insignificant detail.
** Even if these weren't all valid explanations, the simplest is, it was explicitly stated to be a Christmas Present. Everyone gets gifts they don't like once in a while.
** He didn't say he didn't like Smash Bros. He said he was disappointed that he didn't get '''''Mario Kart'''''.
*** I'm confused, why does he even want Mario Kart Wii? It's got terrible rubber-banding, something which I got sick of and sold days after I bought it.
*** Maybe he wanted Mario Kart because HE LIKES MARIO KART!
* Something in my brain just kind of came to a halt during the ''Willy Wonka vs. Charlie'' review/comparison. The Nostalgia Critic gives ''Charlie'' the edge in the "shrinking a giant chocolate bar" scene because it actually has a reason: sending it through TV, rather than just shrinking a whole lot of chocolate for no discernible reason. Wasn't that, um... exactly the same reason in ''both movies'' (and the book)? Is my mind playing tricks on me?
** I think he meant that in the first movie there was no explanation. He just said Wonkavision and we saw the chocolate go to a box. In this movie, we were explained why he was doing it.
** From the same review: Why doesn't he get that the characterisation of Willy Wonka as being awkward and inconsistent is intentional?
* It seems a bit odd to this Troper that the Nostalgia Critic enjoys and praises Sonic Sat Am and Gargoyles for being darker and more complex, but seems more or less oblivious to the second TMNT series, which is a darker and more complex version of the original. Yes he grew up with the original series, but still you'd think he'd look into a remake of a series he likes so much.
** Try thinking about the TMNT review, when he saw how Dark and Complex the movie was, he assumed the worst and thought it was AdaptationDecay, so, it's probably safe to say he somewhere in between comedy and drama, although it ''still'' bugs me that he hasn't done the proper research and actually find there is a comic, then again, like [[{{ZeroPunctuation}} Yahtzee]] he usually only has a week to come up with jokes, so he doesn't do too much research, so I guess it can't be helped.
** He would have been in college, or even graduated by the time of the 2003 ''Ninja Turtles'' series, he wouldn't have any nostalgic value for it the same way he would for ''Gargoyles'' or ''Sonic [=SatAM=]'', which began a decade before.
*** That's another thing that bugs this troper - it would take all of an hour to use Wikipedia to look up the new
*** Little about the movie? Or do you mean the black and white comics?
*** His Turtles Forever audio review praised the new series characterizations, but he made it pretty clear that what he enjoyed most about the special was that the version of the characters that he grew up with was the same as it ever was. He doesn't watch the new series because it's not his series. To him, Ninja Turtles will always be the 1980s cartoon, and the new series is the characters for a new generation, and is best left alone if it's just going to be tainted by nostalgia.
* This troper was bothered with the Willy Wonka Old vs. New review, when the Critic gave the "better supporting cast" award to the older movie solely based on Charlie, when - by his own admission - the Burton version's bratty children were better. Yes Charlie was important, but Aragorn was [[YourMilageMayVary arguably]] one of the most important characters in the LOTR movies and he still took the rest of the cast into consideration.
** Actually, I kind of got the impression he included Charlie as 'supporting cast' as opposed to giving him his own category to break the tie between the 'old vs. new' supporting cast. But I haven't asked.
*** He did, but this troper recalls him lumping the bad children together, commenting that they were all very well done and he liked them better for Burton, then went on to say that Charlie was "too perfect", which he was in the book (that's another thing that bugs this troper: the Critic disliked stuff Burton did which was in the original book, and while it's understandable that he didn't like it, it seemed a bit unfair that he was blaming Burton for being closer to the source material). It just seemed to this Troper that he put he gave the award purely by his views on Charlie and just glanced over the four others. Dunno, the other "Old versus New"s just seemed a bit more fair.
*** The Critic doesn't really seem to give a shit about the book. The debate isn't "Which of these movies is a more faithful representation of the novel," it's "Which of these movies is better/more fun to watch?" The fact that ''Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'' was more authentic doesn't mean that it was a better movie. It may make it a better ''adaptation,'' but, once again, that's not what it's about. It's a bit like the Batman/The Dark Knight kerfluffle. ''The Dark Knight'' is, arguably, a more authentic adaptation of themes and concepts present in the comic, but the Critic likes ''Batman'' better, and there's nothing wrong with that.
**** Except that when he compared Old vs New for LordOfTheRings, one of the things he compared was how close the characters were to how they were in the book. That was how he chose Frodo.
**** It could be that the original ''Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'' book isn't a "literary classic" ''on the same scale'' as Lord of the Rings or nearly as well known as the 1971 film. The book's acclaimed, at least to my knowledge, but still.
*** Or, maybe Doug (and by extension, the critic) is actually a fan of the ''Lord of the Rings'' books, and not ''Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.'' He could have used the books as a barometer for LOTR because he read the books, and like them. Maybe he never read the original ''Charlie.''
** From the Willy Wonka vs. Charlie video: why does he call ''Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory'' "the original"? It's not. It's the first adaption. The original is the book. The new movies isn't an adaption of the first movie, it's an adaption of the book. Why didn't he at least mention "Burton changed this and I don't like it, but it was in the original book"? Why didn't he even pretend to make it fair? The first adaption wins 4:1 - but even for the animated LOTR which many fans consider to be SoBadItsHorrible he went for a 3:2
*** Because he's comparing films, not the book.
**** Yes - and that is what bugs me. You can't isolate the "film" aspect - they are both adaptions of a book. He complains about Charlie not being the focus of the story because his name is in the title of the book - the same book on which the "Charlie is a little saint"-idea comes from. And in the ''Hook''-review, he criticizes Tinkerbell for being unlike the book - yet ''Hook'' is a film.
***** Sure you can, there's nothing stopping him or a rule saying he can't. If he wants to compare films, he can certainly compare films--he can bring in the books to make a point, but his schtick as a whole is reviewing films.
*** And he wasn't comparing Tinkerbell to the book (which is ''not'' the original version, that would be the play), he's comparing her to every adaptation of the story ever, including such things as ''Disney's extremely well-known classic.'' Whole different boat to the Charlie stuff.
**** I'm in favour of the 2005 ''Charlie'' film, but this is apples and oranges; ''Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'' has been adapted just twice, and, at least in North America, is best known for the 1971 adaptation rather than the book. Peter Pan on the hand, has been adapted more times than that, with the 1950s Disney movie not being the first, and ''Hook'' probably not being the last.
*** No one said anything about Disney's Peter Pan being the first. I said it was extremely well known. The point is that in almost every adaptation of the story, Tinker Bell is a bit of a jealous bitch. Generally she gets over it, but in ''Hook'' her characterization seemed counter to that, and he chose to point it out. He didn't say there was anything really ''wrong'' with it, he just didn't like it much.
* Speaking of LordOfTheRings, in his Old vs New for that, he talks about characters being like in the book. Good. But then we get to [[BigBad Sauron,]] and he falls flat on his ass. He complains about how he looks all dark and evil in the Jackson version, and he thinks he should be some kind of conniver, when in the books, it says that: 1. Sauron's a shapeshifter, 2. he got sorta [[ModeLock mode locked]] after the fall of Numenor, and he can't change into anything not twisted and evil, and 3. we see him in the Jackson film IN A FUCKING FIGHT SCENE. How do you expect him to fucking look in a fucking fight? If I were an evil lord, I don't care how much of an evil chancellor I am, if I'm fighting, I'm going to wear my fucking armor. Sure, it looks over the top, but it's also practical-no pointless spikes and flanges. And, if he's fighting, the train's already left the station on trickery, don't you think?
* In NC's review of ''He-Man and She-Ra: A Christmas Special'', he has this RunningGag in which he has a hard time saying Hordak's name correctly on account he couldn't understand Horde Prime's odd voice saying it. But later in the review, he doesn't show any reaction when he runs a clip of the clearer-voiced Skeletor saying "[The children are] mine, Hordak!"
** Furthermore, over a year earlier, the Nostalgia Chick reviewed She-Ra: Princess of Power, clearly saying Hordak's name several times. Do contributors not watch each other's videos? Maybe it was simply a deliberate [[LampshadeHanging lampshading]] of how hard Horde Prime was to understand.
*** Actually, they don't necessarily watch each other's jokes. When the Critic writes for the other reviewers he sometimes isn't familiar with their running jokes. For example, in the Brawl he wrote Linkara as being surprised when his gun actually worked despite having used it repeatedly already.
** It was a joke, period. Just a f* cking joke.
** The site's [[SeriousBusiness srs bzns]], obviously!
* Is it just me, or does Doug seem to be getting less and less concerned with enunciation lately? In his first videos, he was able to speak so clearly at a very long and fast rate, now he just seems to not mind mumbling the occasional word here and there (Probably the most glaring example is him saying "Songs That Don't Need Lyrics But I added them anyway HA!" but slurring the ''t'' in 'But', despite how short the line is).
* This is really just a trifle, but ThisTroper 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.
* So, what does the NC work as outside of his reviews? I can't recall any sort of interview or the like that's mentioned what he does beyond his online stuff.
** NC's work IS his reviews, now.
*** Ah, I had an inkling of that. At the risk of getting lynched by his fanbase, I didn't stick with the idea because to me it just seemed odd someone could support themselves doing that. He must be doing more than I realize, or it's higher paying than I thought.
**** I'm surprised myself. I guess it's a mixture of ad revenue, merchandise, and fan donations.
** Before his reviews, he said he was an Illustrator/Designer. There was a video he made on Youtube (something about tag, this Troper isn't quite sure about it) mentioning that [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI2qhazxYJ8 seen here]]
* Will someone please explain to me how the whole "Tone Loc" OverlyLongGag in the BebesKids movie review is supposed to be considered even remotely funny?
** A few lines tried hard (Benzaie going for complete NonSequitur and Phelous at one point just rattling off his real name), but in truth... haven't they ever noticed that line above the second O in the credits? As in, long O?
*** According to Doug's brother, they were pressed for time and wrote the script in about half a day. I'm assuming they laughed with each other over how to pronounce it and didn't have time to proofread for quality and realize "Hey, this joke won't be funny to anyone but us".
** To be perfectly honest, it was worth the "Hansel?" bit at the end, at least that's how ThisTroper feels.
** It wasn't remotely funny, it was pretty funny.
* While I've come to accept and respect the fact that the man has very different taste from myself and doesn't always like films I liked, one thing still constantly eats at me: His top 20 videos had him say something along the lines of "I feel guilty placing a sci-fi superhero movie in the same list as a work of cinematic art." SciFiGhetto at its finest, folks.
** IIRC, it was more like "Yeah, I prefer [[Film/{{Batman}} a superhero movie]] than ''CitizenKane'', which is considered the Best Movie Ever by pretty much everyone, and I'm proud of it."
*** It was. Doug wasn't disparaging Batman as a superhero movie or not saying "it's not art" or anything REMOTELY similar. He was just noting the humorous irony of preferring a movie about a guy where a spandex-clad mascot for Bat-Devices (TM) punches people to a movie about a politician's life which everyone says revolutionized movies and completely changed the way film was used as a storytelling medium. It's like preferring {{Dune}} to TheBible.
*** [[CitizenKane Kane]]'s a politician? I never saw the film, but I thought that he's a media tycoon.
*** He dabbles in politics. He marries the president's niece, and eventually attempts to run for governor. I don't know if makes him a politician, though.
** He said that he thinks that superheroes are the GreekMythology of our time. He has a high opinion on it.
* Has anyone else noticed the gradual time kickback for the NC videos? A few months ago, I would come home on Tuesdays and expect a new video by 7 PM. It seems like now, I'm more likely to be ASLEEP when they finally have it ready.
** At least he's keeping the updates fairly constant, on a weekly basis. A few hour lag is better than erratic updating.
* [[Tropers/{{Luna87}} This troper]] was annoyed by his comments at the end of Nostalgia Critic's review of {{The Pagemaster}}. He said that the main character was already getting statistics and things from books, so it was stupid to encourage him to read more. Well, here's the thing: all of the books looked at in that movie were stories, not statistics books. You can't exactly lose yourself or imagine things from a nonfiction book. That just bugged me a little.
** I felt the same way. Reading up on statistical facts because you're a paranoid nervous wreck like Rich and reading inspired works of fiction for enjoyment and/or even to enrich your own understanding or fiction or the world at large are NOT the same thing.
*** Except the movie never made that distinction. Hammers on the moral "reading = good" without any nuance whatsoever.
** "You can't exactly lose yourself or imagine things from a nonfiction book"? This troper disagrees. His favorite book at age 10 was Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History Of Time", he understood all of it and just loved to imagine the places where the events described in the book take (or have taken) place: the big bang, the formation of black holes, the Hawking radiation, the possible existence of wormholes... hey, just thinking about that book right now made him hum the Frontier theme!
*** Glad I'm not the only one here who can lose himself in nonfiction as I do in fiction sometimes. Thought it might be just me.
* In the Nostalgia Critic's Top 11 Villain Songs cover image, there is Oogie-Boogie from ''TheNightmareBeforeChristmas''... and yet, his villain song is [[CoversAlwaysLie NOT]] among the top 11 listed by Doug!!! He doesn't even mention him! Why? That's something that should have made to the Top 11 F* ck-Ups...
** That might have more to do with the title card artist than with the critic himself.
** The artist confirmed he put Oogie there because he was one of his favorite villains, and also because he didn't make the list. Also, I don't think it's exactly worthy of being part of the Top 11 F* ck-Ups, it was just the artists preference, also, if you're frustrated that Oogie wasn't on the list, it's not a big deal, I wanted him on the list too, but most of the choices were just as good.
** I might also add that the Top 11 F* ck-Ups list was made months before the Top 11 Villain Songs. So it was hardly going to be in there either way.
* On a similar note, why does the TMNT review get so much flack? Yes, the Mako joke was unfortunate, but other than that bad (In particular, his reaction to the scene of Leonardo chewing out Raphael being a vigilante. That was funny)
** The review gets a lot of flack not just because of Mako, but because Doug did little to no research on the franchise and constantly cited "inaccuracies" that were exclusive to the old show, while nobody can blame him for the RuinedFOREVER reaction, it just boggles the mind, granted, the Indie comic is very obscure, but a simple ''internet search'' could easily get you the results you need for information. It's not a bad review, it's just that he assaults the movie ''because it's not like the 1987 show'', he calls the movie decent, but the review remains an example of [[DidNotDoTheResearch how inaccurate]] his information can be.
*** He was raised on the 80's cartoons. Practically everyone was. No one honestly read the obscure comic books before seeing the cartoon as a kid. He represents the largest fandom the franchise has, fans of the awesome cartoon. It was what made the franchise even remembered, and it certainly wasn't the comic books that brought forth the movies, it was the popularity of the cartoon.
**** If you go into the comments section for NC's TMNT review, you'll find that 1/3 of the comments say it's based on the Mirage comics, another third say it's a continuation of the live-action movies (chronologically arranged in such away that declares Discontinuity on the third), others saying that the movies makes more sense if you've seen the 2003 cartoon (whose audience was the audience for TMNT), others still saying that there are separate comic books explain what's going on in the movie because the movie doesn't. Any inaccuracies aside, NC's main points (The narrative is a mess, the wangst between Leonardo and Raphael is ludicrous and overblown, etc.) are valid.
* How does Doug keep losing his voice?
** I know, I mean, it's not like he regularly does very loud passionate angry reviews regularly or anything. His character voices are but gentle bunnies bouncing in the breeze.
** The real question is why is it ONLY three times he's lost his voice?
** He explained several times that he has a recurring throat problem that randomly kicks back in from time to time.
** Yeah... "randomly kicks in". [[LargeHam You keep]] [[ScreamingWarrior telling yourself]] [[AtomicFBomb that]].
** He's a trained singer, isn't he? Does anyone know if he warms up before a review the same way he would before singing? Because if he isn't already, he should; it won't fix the throat issue, but it will keep his voice from going AWOL as often as it has recently.
*** I don't recall that. All the times I saw him sing in videos were lighthearted and not that great, or he obviously lip-syncs famous songs.
*** YMMV. "Holiday Clusterfuck", "Oh What An Adequate Morning" in the 2009 Brawl, the ''2001'' parody in the ''Garbage Pail Kids Movie'' review and the Angry Joe Show theme, while lighthearted, still sounded like someone who knew what they were doing. But yes, he is stated to be a trained singer.
*** He also said in the commentary for "Quest for Camelot" that he once sang "The Prayer" at a recital, so I assume at some point he was a singer.
*** Singing presentably and performing loud angry rants for his reviews are not the same thing.
*** No, but they both benefit extraordinarily from proper vocal training.
* In the "Junior" review, when Bhargav (as the judge) sentences NC to watching the rest of the film for his "crimes against humanity"... has he ever committed anything of the sort? I know, I know, AllJustADream and all that jazz, but I'm still kinda curious. By itself, the line sounds kind of generic.
** Perhaps it's a tongue-in-cheek reference to the whole Mako thing.
*** There aren't any specific details I can think of, but the character does seem to have a reasonable amount of evil in him. I mean, he's no Ask That Guy, but still.
*** And he did kill Mary Poppins that one time...
*** I thought that the whole dream sequence was inspired by the trial in Pink Floyd's ''The Wall.''
* They're still releasing Nostalgia Critic episodes on schedule, so what was the whole influx of commentaries (seven in three months) for?
** Doug and his brother just got the urge to look back on old episodes? It doesn't take much time to just record them talking while watching it. And Doug pointed out that he is making a lot of commentaries lately and that he'd take a break from them for a while.
** Filler for the two year anniversary week.
** Why? Were the videos running short? I never noticed that. Besides, ''Kickassia'' and the related crossovers were filmed over ''four days''. That doesn't account for all those successive commentaries over the course of three months.
*** Four days of of shooting. There had to be preperations for all contributors to arrive, arrangements with Kevin Baugh and working on script. Then there was need of editing, adding music and fanart. So yeah.
*** So, no. The preparations wouldn't affect the shooting schedule of 10-20 minute reviews by that much (the preparations are Bargo's responsibility, I think), nor would a set of fanart drawings. Plus the fact that only one out of the 15 or so people there writes, directs and edits.
*** Those 10-20 minute reviews can take upwards of three hours to film, probably about two hours to write (not including how many times they have to watch the movie) and I shudder to think how much editing. And you want this to happen while they do a grueling four-day shoot complete with editing what amounts to a ninety minute feature film. Riiiiiiiiight. Yeah, that makes sense...
*** There ''are'' other editors other than the Nostalgia Critic to fill gaps, you know. That's what I was getting at. The ''rest of the site'' wouldn't be disrupted by something which was filmed by different people a month before.
*** Sorry, I misread what you said before. In which case I can get why you're irked...but I still think that them not making/releasing content for and over those two weeks is justifiable as a lot of these people do a) have lives outside of making videos and b) have to put a lot of time and work into making just one video a week, let alone three.
* Ma-Ti. I have a problem with everything Ma-Ti. First off, Bhargav is awful as Ma-Ti. Wrong skin color, wrong accent, and wrong acting. Second, he doesn't belong anywhere he's been placed except for the Captain Planet review. Third, I don't think Doug watched much of CaptainPlanetAndThePlaneteers because he gives "Heart" such awful treatment. HEART IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE TITULAR HERO! Without the caring for the environment "Heart" gives him, he would never be what he was.
** In the very first episode in which he appears, the NC told him "Hey, you're not the real Ma-Ti!", after which Bhargav punched him and ran away IIRC. And Heart still sucks. I mean, come on, everybody makes jokes about it, and we named the trope for "useless power" WhatKindOfLamePowerIsHeartAnyway. Heart makes Captain Planet a good guy and allows Ma-Ti to talk to animals. The other planeteers can control fire, air, water and earth and are as important to create Captain Planet as Heart.
** Wait, how is he the wrong skin color? And the above poster is right. The fact that ''he's nothing like ma-ti'' is the ''joke''.
** Presumably the reoccurring use of Ma-Ti stemmed from the Captain Planet review, which was also what introduced the idea that Heart was a bit lame (which was, like everything else in the review, the Critic's opinion on the matter). If this troper were to guess, Bhargav's cameo was so well-received that they brought him back several times, with the idea that Ma-Ti is the ButtMonkey who resorts to violence when necessary.
* In which episode does the elephant/Burger King running gag originate? Also, Chuck Norris. Because I keep seeing these two gags everywhere with no context and I want to understand what they mean.
** The former started in the Nickcoms review, 13 january 2009. The latter is just a very old meme.
** Do you know who else sees context-less gags everywhere? Chuck Norris!
** Uh-chuck-uh NOORRRRRIISSSSSSSSSS!!
** The Chuck Norris joke originally comes from Sidekicks.
** No it doesn't. It predates TGWTG.com and comes from a site called ChuckNorrisFacts, an offshoot of VinDiesel Facts.
*** I think the Chuck Norris gag referenced here is the one specific to TGWTG.com, with the flag of the USA and the music and everything.
* Santa Christ's first appearance. He cures NC's diabetes, and regularly reads to sick orphans. Couldn't he cure them as well?
** [[FridgeBrilliance But then he wouldn't have sick orphans to read to.]]
* His Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Willy Wonka comparison-review. While I can point out quite a few things biased or wrong with that comparison, did he even read the books like he said? Most of what he ranted about were taken straight from the books.
** ...and? He was comparing the two films, not the films ''and'' the book.
** He said he read the books, the above troper points flaws in that, on the account of the 2005 film being ''much'' more faithful (from what I can recall, he ''does'' mention the books in his Old vs New of [[Animated/TheLordOfTheRings The Lord]] [[Film/TheLordOfTheRings of The Rings]]). What's the issue?
*** I think the previous troper is complaining that many of the issues that the Critic picked on (such as Charlie basically being Jesus and Willy Wonka being way too weird) were actually more faithful to the books than the Gene Wilder version. My response is that, while the books may matter (e.g., the Critic picking animated!Frodo over Elijah!Frodo because he was more authentic) he still goes based on what he thinks makes for the better movie. So while Charlie may have been perfect in both the book and the second movie, it makes for a better film when he's a bit more flawed.
*** It's also worth noting that Charlie's "Jesus-ness" was somewhat exaggerated in the Tim Burton film. In the book, he's a quiet, well-behaved kid, who never breaks the rules or steps out of line in the way that the Charlie in the 1971 film occasionally does, but in the 2005 film he's a complete martyr.
**** A martyr has to be ''dead''. But seriously? I had never noticed that discrepancy between the book and the 2005 film (that he's pure at all I thought was the entire point of both, and why I hated the "I said good day" ending in the 1971 film, on top of Charlie actually stealing the fizzy lifting drinks). NC is entitled to his opinion which is better, of course.
*** Nope. Martyr is a standard metaphor for anyone who willingly suffers or goes without for the sake of their principles (and is often used to imply that they're doing it ostentatiously, to elicit sympathy - you can look it up). In Charlie's case, I was thinking mainly of his reaction to finding the fifth Golden Ticket. In Burton's film, he initially insists upon selling it for the sake of his family, until they convince him what a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity this is, which I don't recall being in the book (there, a few people did try to pressure him into selling them the ticket, but the shop-keeper stood up for him and nothing more was said on the matter). This, along with most of Charlie's scenes and dialogue, seemed purposefully designed (or redesigned) to show off just how amazingly selfless he is. Yes, Charlie is supposed to be pure at heart, and that's why he triumphs in the end, but I personally feel that Burton went overboard and made Charlie "too pure", to the point where it just feels manipulative. That's why I'm in agreement with NC on this.
**** Sorry, "too pure"? You're pure, or you're not.
*** Hence the commas (it was a figure of speech, not to be taken too literally). My point is, in Burton's film, Charlie's goodness, purity, or whatever you care to call it, was rather shoved down the viewer's throat - more so than in Dahl's book, where it seemed a notch more understated. That's how I saw it, anyway.
* "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?
** Thanks Giving 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 this troper was a child, her grandparents came over to help with the trick-or-treating.
* Why was there a need for the NCs endless rant about "dreaming doesn't make things come true" in the review of ATrollInCentralPark? Seriously. He bitches about this forever - in a fucking kids movie. I don't want to defend the movie, but I've seen eleventy zillion bajillion movies that teach an aesop about the power of dreams. This is an established kids-movie lesson. And before someone tells me "You don't get it, he's complaining that the movie portrays dreams as being automatically fulfilled wishes" - it's clear that the movie is NOT intended to make children believe that their dreams grant instant wish fulfillment.
** Because the way it's done in the movie is really annoying, and obnoxious.
* I've always wondered why the Nostalgia Critic character is so damn offended by the [[BatmanAndRobin Bat credit card]]? Was it that inane and silly a concept for a dark character like Batman that the critic just snapped?
** Yes.
** Even camp has standards.
* In the 90s Sports Montage, the Nostalgia Critic refers to one of the angels as "that creepy angel that looks like Christopher Lloyd." But he is Christopher Lloyd! Is that the Critic's weird way of saying the angel was played by Lloyd, or does he just not know it's actually Lloyd?
** The first one. See IAmNotLeonardNimoy.
** He was speaking in character as God. God, as a 'character' in the movie, was comparing the angel to the actor, who, in the world of the movie, would have been a seperate person.
* I saw the Critic do this gesture where he presses his thumb behind his front teeth, flicks his thumb out, and says, "Nyyyh!" I've tried, but I can't seem to find out what that means and it bugs me to no end.
** My guess is he was biting his thumb at the movie, which was the equivalent of flipping people off centuries ago.
** [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bite_your_thumb# Gestures_made_with_other_body_parts "Biting one's thumb was an old rude British gesture."]]
* How is "I was frozen today" a non-sequitur? Chistopher Lloyd's character ''does'' get frozen, and that seems to be preety good reason to get pissed off to me.
** When did anyone say it was? All I recall the Critic saying is that saying that is the best way of ceasing an argument in its tracks. And I think that's what happened in ''Surburban Commando'' too.
** He does say that its his favorite non-sequitur, but I think he meant that its his favorite thing to USE as a non-sequitur.
* You know, for being named "The Nostalgia Critic", he doesn't spend a lot of time criticizing nostalgia. A lot of the things he reviews are generally dislike and not the target of nostalgia. He's also been accused of nostalgia more than once. So what was he going for?
** What are you talking about? He is the nostalgia critic because he reviews nostalgic movies form the 80's and 90's. Whether or not he is fond of them is completely irrelevant. He reviews movies people are ''nostalgic'' about. Not making videos ''about being nostalgic''. Who in gods name would want to watch a bunch of videos about a guy doing nothing but "hey, remember Rock's modern life? 'Was pretty cool."
** Furthermore, he '''has''' been critical of nostalgic movies and tv shows before. The Drug Cartoon Special, Captain Planet, the live-action TMNT movies, The Wizard, the Super Mario Brothers movie, the Top 11 Drug PSAs....look just ''go'' to his website and look at the [[http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic list]] of Nostalgia Critic reviews.
* The ''{{North}}'' review. I can't help but feel it being AllJustADream is actually the only sensible explanation for everything that happens between the moment Bruce Willis leaves in the bunny suit and the moment he wakes up. The absurd premise, Bruce Willis popping up in unexplainable places, the awkward dialogue, the evil kid plot, the stereotypes... it all justifies as a kid's dream. I'm not saying the movie is good, but at least acknowledge that sure explains a lot is a good start.
** No. AllJustADream is one of the cheapest and predictable stunts you can make in a story. Tacking one on at the end just because nothing in your movie makes does not make it better, it just means "Um, this movie made absolutely no sense, and to make it even more pointless, none of it actually happened in the story."
** On top of that, it makes the otherwise intelligent North come across as a huge racist and xenophobe, because, it's ''his'' dream.
* In ''The Top 11 [[VillainSong Villain Songs]]'', the Critic includes "Shiver My Timbers" from ''MuppetTreasureIsland''. It bugs me that he admittedly included it without even bothering to see the rest of movie, especially considering it's more of just a mood-setter (which features no central characters) than a villain song, and the villain proper ''does in fact get a very good song'' later on. If he loved "Shiver" so much, why didn't he bother to watch the film to at least get the context?
** He said he was planning on watching it soon. Besides, it was a villainous song about badass murderous pirates, ending with an entire ship of men getting bullets to their skulls. You don't ''need'' to know the context of the rest of the movie to know that's an awesome bad guy song.
** I found it pretty ironic for much the same reasons. Still, it was clear that Doug's definition of "villain" didn't necessarily mean the main antagonist, but rather characters who were morally wicked in general - Steve Martin isn't the main antagonist of "Little Shop of Horrors", after all (that's Audrey II, who also gets a couple of songs), but he's still a pretty nasty dude, and his "Dentist" song is in celebration of this. So I'd say that "Shiver My Timbers" is a legitimate entry. It's about those pirates and how bad they are and, as the above troper points out, it ends with their leader committing a rather heinous act of betrayal.
* I know it's RuleOfFunny 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.
----
