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

x6 I feel the X-Month might be back but probably not this year.

I kinda want Doug to make a top 11 or 20 of his favorite films of the decade and see if any of them rank in his top 20 all together. See how his views of cinema has changed.

I read that he said if he were updating his top 20 he'd add Inside Out and Where the Wild Things Are.

Prequels Better Than the New Trilogy?:

Best line: "Great read, kid! That was one in a million!"

All it proves to me, once again, is that I cannot take Doug Walkers opinions seriously, still going on about and speaking for people about opinions on the Prequel Trilogy. Tha k god I stopped watching him seriously since #Change The Channel.

Do you disagree with his assessment?

No, but the whiny ass way he gives out his critique has only gotten worse since I stopped watching him.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I feel like while Revenge of the Sith is much better than all three of the sequel trilogy movies besides maybe Last Jedi, the other two prequel trilogy movies are much worse.

Revenge of the Sith is what they were building towards the entire time,it's the best of the three for that reason

I actually remember Revenge of the Sith being the first Star Wars movie I watched in theaters. To this day it's my third favorite Star Wars movie. Only behind Return of the Jedi(#1) and Empire Strikes Back (#2).

Can you believe he put "Phantom Menace" above "Jaws: The Revenge" (or rather "Jaws 3-D") on his worst sequels list? "Jaws: The Revenge" has a rating of 0% on Rotten Tomatoes.

That's pretty ballsy to defend something you find worse than 0%. I love this clip as it says South Park doesn't have a consistent ideology. Neither does the Nostalgia Critic and this is a great demonstration. He simply makes jokes about whatever seems funny at the time.

Seriously, watch that clip and realize it's the exact same thing with the Nostalgia Critic.

Phantom Menace shouldn't have even been on his Worst Sequels list since it's a prequel, but I guess that's being too technical.

The problem I had with this latest editorial is he didn't really answer the question on if the prequels are better. I know it's a matter of opinion, but it would have been interesting to hear his opinion .

I mean, he did ultimately say that while the prequels weren't technically good movies, they were still more cohesive than the new trilogy. So they were better at *that*, at least.

Edited by Motyka5 on Jan 9th 2020 at 2:47:17 AM

I mean, I find the new trilogy a lot better than the prequels. The new trilogy has some Unintentionally Unsympathetic characters, and wasted some plot elements left over from the original trilogy but not one moment of that is as bad as dealing with the Jar Jar Binks, the wild tonal clashes and dumb plotting. EP 3 really wasn't great either, it ruined what should have been an incredible story of the fall of a great Jedi and just made it so an incompetent madman tricked a young Jedi into being his sidekick.

Edited by Wildcard on Jan 9th 2020 at 7:36:56 AM

Agree to disagree I guess. I like Revenge of the Sith more than the new Trilogy. However the Sequels are at least better then Attack of the Clones. But can we agree that The Clone Wars/Rebels and the Mandalorian are better than the films in general?

Edited by Bullman on Jan 9th 2020 at 8:06:32 AM

*5

I'm guessing he put Phantom Menace higher on the list because he was doing worst sequels compared to the movies that preceded them, and Jaws 2 and 3 weren't considered very good.

After thinking about it I believe one of the things that I like the most about the prequels is that they feel... more salvageable. The main idea of the prequels is solid, and that with a bit more work and someone to rein in some of the ideas you can easily have some really good movies. With the sequel trilogy, I don't really feel that way.

I disagree, I think the main spoiler of EP 9 was a good idea but it should've been built up and been more of a mystery, and seeing a certain someone being so powerful and using the force in new way and not just repeat the same beats over and over again was cool.

The editorials are usually not his strongest suit, he often lacks a thesis and ends up being "there's this, but also this, yet THIS, at the same time I can see this..."

The prequels certainly have their flaws, but at their core each has a coherent beginning, middle and end and confidence in the story they were trying to tell. Their weaknesses lie primarily in presentation, some cleaned up dialogue and better direction for the actors would do wonders. What they excelled at was the world building and technical design: they took us to some fascinating new places and equally imaginative new aliens, the ships were more diverse and esoteric and the lightsaber duels were epic battles with amazing music.

The sequels are probably a bit more watchable due to having more comedy and more... excitable protagonists (with the exception of Driver and the reprising actors from the OT the acting is really nothing special by blockbuster standards), but step by step it feels derivative rather than inventive. We get variations on star destroyers, storm troopers, a Darth Vader wannabe, an Emperor wannabe, a plucky rebellion, Luke analog, x-wings, TIE fighters, AT-AT walkers, etc. While it is technically competent that repetitive design scheme, a focus on backwater planets (more deserts, canyons and forests devoid of civilization) and lack of confident direction ends up making it feel bland. As NC talked about, the OT derivative moments in the prequels felt more understated and deliberate, while the sequels were A LOT more overt and excessive. The sequence of the Falcon flying through the Star Destroyer husk is really not that impressive (of course, really hard to top the infiltration of the Death Star II and escaping with your ass on fire), but given 30 years of nostalgia seeing it in action again was exciting.

At the very least I like this one better than his editorial on if hype can kill a movie.

Edited by Bullman on Jan 10th 2020 at 9:17:12 AM

Anyone have an opinion on the phenomenon of people editing NC videos to get rid of the skits or add clips to clipless reviews? Here’s an example with the Pixels review where movie footage is added back in -

And here’s Labyrinth with all the skits cut out -

Are there old reviews still missing or have all of them been uploaded?

AFAIK, most of the NC reviews have been reupladed from Blip to YT, though there a few outliers, like Child's Play, Simon Sez, Heavy Metal (can't help but notice those were crossovers with former CA producers) or "Top 11 Awkward Christopher Walken Moments" (I'm not sure why this one didn't).

Edited by Motyka5 on Jan 13th 2020 at 12:16:09 PM

Maybe they can't reupload it because they might get a copyright strike against NBC (the episode contains a lot of SNL clips). NBC is pretty strict about copyrights much like Viacom.