Doug Walker (TGWTG, Nostalgia Critic, Bum Reviews, and other projects)

That was a bad video, but I also didn't care for his attitude in the Looney Tunes Show editorial. It was very dismissive of those who didn't happen to enjoy it as much as he did, with snarky lines like "Go back to your utopian time period that never existed."

Everyone's free to react to the CA scandal by not watching his videos, but there's something I'd like to ask the people who scoff at the notion of separating the art from the artist: if someone's an exceptionally good person, I mean just a total saint, do we have to support their work even if it sucks?

Edited by MFLuder on Apr 23rd 2019 at 12:54:43 PM

No, because it sucks.

Isn't that how it works?

Yes, yes it is.

YO. Rules of the Internet 45. Rule 45 is a lie.

Does not wanting to be friends with a serial killer obligate you to find a nurse to befriend instead?

Nice attempt at a gotcha, but no one ever said morality is symmetrical.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Morality is symmetrical.

There, it has been said.

YO. Rules of the Internet 45. Rule 45 is a lie.

The Era of ranty Online critics like Walker,Enter, and others is coming to an end, brought down by their own egos and stupidity.

In one of your posts a few pages back you basically said that separating the art from the artists doesn't make sense the art is still a product of the artist no matter what. That may be true, but that doesn't mean their work will reflect all the bad things they did. Some people who've done reprehensible things have produced art that's not only great, but expresses noble themes. People can be contradictory that way.

it isnt necceserily true, but in this case it is.

Doug is the Nostalgia Yeller and the Nostalgia Yeller is Doug, you cant separate them.

Supporting one means supporting the other.

Besides who knows how many good artists who are good people were suppressed by the awful ones?

Edited by Superdark33 on Apr 24th 2019 at 11:19:07 AM

Sure, TERRIBLE people have made good art. And there is an extent of Death of the Author. At the same time, who that author was is a level of context to some things that's harder to ignore. I'd say Death of the Author has a sliding scale. 1984, as explained by the author himself, was also meant to criticize homosexuals. I can appreciate 1984 and what it has given us but I can also recognize that, it technically was targeting me.

But I think Doug and the NC are too connected. He says it's a character a lot but I don't see much of a line very often. It's like... a fictionalized autobiography. Sure, it's fake, but it's still the author telling their own story how they want to tell it about what is BASICALLY them.

Or, like shitty fan fiction. Sure, I really don't know the guy who wrote this edgy angsty teen fic of Harry Potter, but I can kind of read that I think the author thinks of themselves as cool as they think their MC is with their edgy one-liners and sex and overly flashy combat abilities. Knowing that it is the author explains things about the work and means you can't divorce certain things.

I think shitty fan fiction is different because frequently we enjoy them because of the glimpse into the author's fucked-up psyche, kinda like The Room. With comedians or critics, I don't think you have to approve of them as people to like their jokes or observations.

That notion rings really hollow for Doug because as much as he sometimes tries to emphasise that the Critic is a fictional character, he very obviously does use him as an outlet for his own views and opinions. Especially post-revival, where he frequently uses his reviews to deliver an Author Filibuster about his views on Hollywood, storytelling ethos and other things.

That said, the reason I feel you can't even theoretically "separate" Doug from his work in watching it is because in watching him you are supporting him financially. Handing him money is an action that weighs far more heavily than expressing outrage over his conduct.

For that reason, I feel the comparison with 1984 doesn't totally hold up — George Orwell is dead, so in buying and reading his book you're at least not knowingly giving money to a homophobe. In watching Doug Walker's videos, sharing them, discussing them or even just clicking on them, you are giving financial aid to a person who has participated in abusing and taking financial advantage of his employees.

Edited by DrDougsh on Apr 24th 2019 at 6:29:02 AM

So basically what your saying is if Doug was dead you'd have less of a problem with people watching his stuff

I'm A Pervert not an Asshole!

Well, yeah. I mean, one can still debate whether you're giving some kind of ideological legitimacy to a person by consuming their work in either case, but that at least is more of an abstract issue. By giving revenue to a person who's still actively turning out content, you are, on the other hand, signalling your approval of their conduct in the most concrete terms possible.

I mean, whether watching Doug's shit would be more justifiable if he were dead is a totally moot point to consider, because nobody is still going to be watching him by the time he dies. His work isn't exactly destined to outlive him.

Edited by DrDougsh on Apr 24th 2019 at 7:43:38 AM

I feel like there was a misunderstanding with my last post {Not referring specefically to Dr Dougsh, I mean in general}. When I say that I don't watch older NC videos on any of CA's official youtube channels, I mean that I watch them on various, generally old fan uploads of those videos on You Tube, many of which are from long abandoned accounts. The Walkers and Michaud aren't making a single cent off any of my views from the 2007-2012 era ever since Change the Channel, and I don't even watch the stuff that came out from the reboot and onwards anymore. So don't mistake me sometimes rewatching Old NC episodes when I occasionally feel like it as "supporting" them.

For me, I've grown to dislike the NC reboot era because, among many other reasons I could to on about but won't, that's when Doug's ego was starting to shine through. In the older videos and perhaps the first couple of years of the reboot, NC was generally portrayed as a loser with serious issues in between all the riffing he did {See the ending of the My Pet Monster video for example, then followed up by the first Commercials video}. That kinda vanished later on in the reboot when NC became more of Doug's Author Avatar self insert that he sometimes uses to look down on people for daring to like something he thinks is stupid, or preaching heavily at people about his opinions on various subjects.

Edited by marston on Apr 24th 2019 at 8:11:13 AM

Yeah, Self-Deprecation was more pronounced in the earlier videos, which could be one of the reasons why it was easy to like him.

"It's vague, it's confusing, and it's just a mess. Kinda like my sex life."

The guy who made the documentary made another vid as a follow-up, in part as response to some backlash he got.

Disgusted, but not surprised

Yikes.

Well I mean what kind of reaction did he expect? A year passed without any change from the company, and with a ton of supporters who felt their voice couldn't be heard!

To be clear, I never meant to imply that I support giving him views. I don't. I don't watch his new stuff and if I ever had the inkling of doing so, I'd go to the fan uploads or elsewhere.

Because what he profits off of cares very little for our opinions about his behavior. So I don't give him what he wants from us.

Anyway, Stuart Little:

Best jokes:

• "Johnny's a bear."
• "WHOA, WHOA! I mean, we all think it but we never say it, what the fu—"
• Doug throwing an apple at a pan.
• "HOP!"
• "If only they had cat reflexes to jump off, pity they're dogs!"

Next week: Toonami.

Just a person. He/him.

"Anyway, enough of this heavy conversation discussing the ethics of sharing material by and financially supporting horrible people. Here's a new video by Doug!"

I'm glad I was able to contribute to the conversation.

Edited by Motyka5 on Apr 24th 2019 at 4:20:16 AM

Just a person. He/him.

I really wanted to say it but I didn't want to sound like a petty asshole if no one else agreed.

If that wasn't the case, what else is there to gain?

YO. Rules of the Internet 45. Rule 45 is a lie.

My guess is he's just gonna cover OLD, RETRO Toonami, not the current version that desperately needs ratings.

Does he even have any nostalgic connection to Toonami like he did Fox Kids or the Disney Afternoon?