Reviews WebVideo / The Nostalgia Critic

Was \"dreams destroyed by reality\" really necessary? You call him spiteful but this is pretty in that territory too.

As a fan of the Critic, it's my moral obligation to tell you why you're objectively wrong for daring to have a different opinion than me.

"Yell in a high-pitched voice as often as possible. Who could ever find this annoying?"

Considering how plenty of the times when he yells it's not high-pitched, it seems like you're making something out to be larger than it actually is.

"2. When you see an opportunity to reference, talk about or dress up like Batman: seize it. Nobody will ever assume you're obsessed."

The majority of those times being when he's making videos about Batman. When the video isn't Batman related, the most he'll do is either give slight Batman information (be it a cartoon or film), or just a quick joke that lasts less than 10 seconds.

"Assume that flashy special effects, costumes, melodramatic storylines, pointless cameos and saccharine aesops, all stretched out to 45 minutes are superior to your original, more sparse and to the point 15 minute shorts."

45 minutes? Very few of his videos reach that length. Also, he does plenty of reviews without story lines cameos or aesops. The way you worded it made it seem like you were saying he does this in every review.

"When uninspired: spoof something. Dressing up as pop culture characters and recreating scenes shot-by-shot is inherently funny in itself."

Eh, can't argue against you not finding them funny.

"Claim to be a reviewer of "nostalgic media", even though many of your present videos are about films hardly a few years old or - in some cases - still in theaters at time of recording."

Let's ignore how he said he'd no longer have any cut-off dates in The Review Must Go On. He still does plenty of reviews of films from over a decade back. As for his reviews on films that are still in theaters, the majority of the time, they're still connected to something nostalgic (latest films of old film franchises, or movies on super heroes from the early 1900's)

"The only thing that resembles an actual review (not just riffing) should appear briefly at the end, almost as an afterthought, with typical vague lines like: "The story makes no sense, the characters aren't interesting"

Let me quote some lines of the Critic that weren't at the end.

'But the parenting in this movie is awful! I mean, really, really awful! They're trying to tell this story to show how much they've learned, but all we ever see is them constantly acknowledge that they always make the wrong choices!'

'If you want to go full silly, fine. Then leave out the serious romance, leave out the generic bully. Leave out the complicated rules you're making up for this world cause they clearly don't make any sense. These are so poorly written, we can't tell when you're "supposed to be funny" or supposed to be real.'

'But, for whatever fucking reason, they keep bringing in this political power struggle and talk of the prophecy, and that's not what Alice in Wonderland is about! It's supposed to be a fun road trip of dream-like nonsense; an escape from reality through creative surrealism. It's supposed to be a child-like experience, not a fucking war movie!'

'Oh, sure—[the kid from Blues Brothers 2000] dances a bit, wears a suit, even plays a harmonica... but in terms of contributing to anything else? I mean, like, anything in the story, any kind of character traits, any kind of personality? Nada. Not a thing! He barely even says a word throughout the entire film, or looks Elwood in the eye. A two-hour movie, and he has a minute-and-a-half of worth.'

He gives criticisms far more often than only at the end of the review.

6. Can't argue much about the research errors he makes either. Granted, I feel that you're blowing it way out of proportion, but you have a point there.

7. "When discussing something: just Leave the Camera Running and spout some incoherent thoughts. Never edit or trim anything down. Bring in your brother too, so you can shout over each other's words"

The whole point of Sibling Rivalry and Real Thoughts is to go out of character and give their legitimate, unscripted thoughts. The talking over each other shows that they're actual being people rather than characters.

8. "Make editorials built around a seemingly confirmative question ("Is... as bad as they say?"), only to halfway say: "Not necessarily" and point out that it actually isnt."

Exactly why he has several editorials with questions that aren't like that such as 'Why is Tom and Jerry genius' 'When does a joke go too far' 'Whats up with the Princess Hate' etc, etc. Doesn't help your point that sometimes he'll say yes to that question such as 'Are kids shows better now than ever'

"Frequently ridicule professional artists for "bad acting & writing, relying on cheap jokes and spoofs and not evolving with the times", while not realizing your own work suffers from the same problems."

Which is why he makes fun of his own writing and spoofs in multiple videos right? And him having those problems doesn't change his criticisms on them. Your point just screams of 'you can't do better so you can't criticize others'

" Always treat any criticism of your work as "douchy nitpicking", even if it actually has a legitimate point to it. Refer to it in your videos in the most spiteful way possible"

Ignoring how Douchey Mc Nitpick hasn't appeared in years, he's only mean to represent the people who act like assholes while doing it. He encourages people in the end of his first f*ck up's countdown to point out when he's made a mistake.

"not realizing this makes you come across as a butt-hurt Man Child whose heroic fantasies have been destroyed by reality."

Which is why he admitted to his Bart's Nightmare LP being a complete failure right? Or why he'll occasionally make fun of Demo Reel? Or why in the end of his Force Awakens video that he's making up for the sins of a previous holiday special of his?

Yeah, this review was pretty bad.

6. From what I can tell, his Editorials are all spot-on. I have no idea where you're getting any inaccurate information he disspells in it. Plus, he moreso expresses his OPINION of a topic, not just facts.

7. It's called a vlog. Doug didn't invent vlogs, person! A countless amount of other users produce them!

9. He has a budget that his small, indie company makes itself, run by a small group of people who are just doing this for fun and for a small payment in areas around Chicago. What the hell kind of budget do you expect him to have!?

Frankly I think he sticks to the nostalgia too much. Just because the theme/subject he chose for himself years and years ago has the word \'nostalgia\' in it is no reason to keep it up now.

I respect him for only reviewing modern films with a nostalgic element but I\'d love to see him do things like George lucas\' animated film

The TL;DR guy is a beautifully pitch-perfect stealth parody of how Channel Awesome fanboys actually think. You should ask Walker to hire you next time he needs a strawman with which to piss all over his fans.

@Bastard 1

Thank you.

@ emeriin: So out of my entire text your only objection is a choice of words in one sentence? I understand Doug getting annoyed over trolls who just dislike him out of envy or who just target his physical appearance and/or his wife. But he just treats all criticism as either nitpicking or ungratefulness. In his review of "Christmas With The Kranks" he spent almost half the video sulking about the fact that many disliked his "Hocus Pocus" review and his new videos in general. Almost like a child who always thought he was the best, but is now faced with reality and can't take this distortion of his illusions. Really, this is not the reaction of an adult. Instead of actually considering why fans might say such a thing or just go on regardless of what people say he decides to make it the focus of an entire episode. Complete with scenes of emotional manipulation. Thus not only attacking his critics, but also irritating his actual fans who always supported him over the years. Doug claims his old work is worse than his present one and he shames us for thinking otherwise, solely based on the fact that his current videos are longer, have more visuals and equipment and don’t rely on random clips and memes as much. The other things he claims were “bad” in the past are just minor things (a different wall) or the result of bad memory (Doug seems to remember his old videos being far more monotone and formulaic than they actually were). In general he thinks that people criticize him for “having changed”. That’s not the point. Change is good and unavoidable after being in the air for so long. The problem is in WHAT way he has changed (which I’ll get further into below).

@ Awesome kid 42

- I'm not the only one who is fed up with Doug's high pitched voice. If you're not annoyed by it, consider yourself lucky, but I have a hard time believing that you it doesn't grate your ears when he starts shrieking and whining again for the umpteenth time.

- My problem with Doug's Batman obsession is that he is a thirtysomething man still gloating over his admiration for what is in essence a children's comic book character. If Doug would discuss Batman in a mature, analytical way it would be fine. But he doesn’t. It’s still a full grown man unable to resist the childish desire to put on his Batman ears and cape and talk how "great and inspiring" Batman is and how "thought provoking" Batman The Animated Series and "The Dark Knight" are. I enjoyed these works too, but c'mon, Doug: they remain child oriented media. He even put Batman second place in his "favorite fictional characters" list. Seriously, man. Grow up! Quit drawing inspiration from fictional characters. They are real humanitarians out there, the ones you always advertize near the end of your editorials, look up to them.

- Whether his videos are always exactly 45 minutes long is not the point. I could have typed "30, 35 or 42 minutes" if there wasn't a word limit at play. I just picked one of the most extreme lengths he has used for several of his videos since his comeback. It's again a great example of how Doug views his content. He seems to think that "bigger equals better". So he tries to make his videos more epic, more action packed, more story-driven, with bigger casts, costume changes, unexpected cameos and "touching" aesops or messages near the end. Unfortunately half of the stuff is just pointless or awkward filler that distracts from the actual review. So as a viewer you don't get a "better" show: you just get a very long and tedious video where about half of the material could have been cut.

Again, I like Doug. He can be very funny. But before his comeback his videos were short and concise. He knew how to get the most laughs out of a review under 15 minutes. Even when he was hyperactive throughout it that was OK, because it didn’t take more than a few minutes. Yes, he didn't have half of the technology, equipment or people back then he has now. But that wasn't necessary for the simple, unpretentious videos he made. He was just trying to be funny. In 2012 he pulled the plug out of the Nostalgia Critic before the format ran out of steam. I actually respected his decision, because I too noticed it became harder and harder for him to reach his deadlines and find creative ways to say how much a movie sucks. Unfortunately his new project Demo Reel was so awful that he was forced to bring the NG back to save his breadwinning. For a while I liked his return. But I noticed he just sneakingly brought the “Demo Reel” format back. Since his comeback Doug just picks movies because he wants to spoof them. He has even chosen films he admits are actually “good” ("The Matrix", "Jurassic Park") or are still in theaters at time of recording ("Jurassic Park IV", "Star Wars VII", "Mad Max: Fury Road"), clearly just to generate clickbait. It has gotten to the point that the film footage itself is no longer necessary. All he wants to do is walk around in pop culture costumes, recreating scenes from other media, for the sake of cheap recognition value and to compensate for his own lack of inspiration and originality. This is also why the original title, "Nostalgia Critic", is no longer in vogue. Half of the films are not "nostalgic", because they’re not that old yet. In many cases he never even saw the film when it first came out ("Digimon: the Movie", "Power Rangers: the Movie", "Princess Diaries 2") or isn't even familiar with the franchise itself ("The Avengers Movie", "Thomas the Tank Engine"), which causes him to make many ignorant remarks and mistakes. The "critic" part is also of lesser importance nowadays. He just dissects a few individual scenes and makes a brief throwaway summarization near the end. Even the examples you named are really not that analytical remarks. Just things any regular person can witness for himself. I'm aware Doug abandoned his cut-off date, but much like his comments over how Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland 2010" doesn't live up to its title you can wonder whether he too isn't providing false advertising at this point?

The main problem with Doug is that his hobby became a business. He releases as many video projects as possible to reach his weekly deadlines and to generate payment from it. I understand it’s his job and that he ought to make money from it. But Doug clearly overestimates his own abilities. He tries to be way too many things at the same time: : a comedian, a writer, a director, a parodist, a satirist, a moralist, an interviewer ("Shut up & Talk"), a reviewer, a critic, a social commentator (his editorials), a game show host (that quiz show that he promoted so much, yet still hasn't been released),... yet is more intent on just recording it and getting it out as quickly as possible than keeping an eye on the quality of what he releases. I’ll be nice and say that Doug can be a good comedian and interviewer in the right circumstances. He is also good when writing merely for himself alone. When writing for others it’s hit-and-miss. His co-actors audibly just slavishly spout his lines and opinions and clearly don’t have much input. That’s why I don’t blame them. Doug often has so much trouble creating engaging character-driven storylines that he just crams in spoofs and clip material to make up for it. The result is a series of lame parodies that look and feel like a bad school play. Haven’t we got enough parody comedy nowadays? ("Family Guy", "South Park", "Robot Chicken", "Adult Swim", "Saturday Night Live", "How It Should Have Ended",...). When Doug tries to provide satirical commentary it’s never clever, subtle or hardly funny for that matter. His aesops are equally forced and so schmalzy that they become unintentionally ludicrous. When Doug wants to discuss something, either in his reviews or editorials, his opinions always remain superficial. Either it’s stuff everybody already knows or could easily think up himself (“Why Is Nothing Original Anymore?”), things he mindboggingly doesn’t understand at his age (the ending of “The Graduate”), things where he uses a subjective or relative opinion as basic fact ("The Dark Age Of Film", where he claims all movies released during the summers of 1996 to 2001 were "bad") or just indecisive opinions that don’t provide you with anything insightful or meaningful ("The Phantom Menace" is bad, but it's so bad that it is inspiring to create better stuff yourself. Therefore its maybe good.”). Half of it is just clickbait composed of pop culture clips, to distract you from the fact that he really doesn't say much new or interesting. While Doug enjoys giving us his opinion about various matters he is not willing to do much research or check his facts before making a statement. I actually feel this is an insult to the viewer. How does Doug view his audience? "Ah, I'll just string some imagery together, talk about it a bit and presto! Video done! Put it online. People will click on it anyway, whether it's good or not. It's not worth more effort or research than that." Same goes for his "Sibling Rivalry" and "Real Thoughts": Don't forget that they actual proclaim these videos to be "in depth discussions" of what they "really think" about a certain film. All I see is Doug clicking a camera on and just rambling whatever comes in his mind, without any sense of constructing his thoughts. In combination with his brother it’s just two men either clowning around and/or not having the patience to actually listen to one another. Sure, it may “prove” they are regular people. But why not actually try to make more effort so that you at least live up to the promise you make in your title? When I see a vlog discussing a film I expect an analytical discussion of that work, where statements are supported by intelligent arguments and actual research, provided by people who take time to let one another finish their statements. Not an overly long video with one or two people babbling a lot, but, not saying anything. Seriously: if Doug’s videos were school/college reports he would fail every time.

And that’s why I feel Doug really shouldn’t be throwing proverbial stones at professional actors and directors. His own work is still amateurish. Yes, I agree with Doug that Adam Sandler is a lazy comedian and that he doesn’t evolve with the times. But why is Doug free from criticism? Just because we like him better than Sandler? Just because we enjoyed him so much in the past? No, his work should be judged on the same terms of quality, especially if he fancies himself to be an actual comedian and director (which he does, seeing that he makes “behind-the scenes” videos of his work, countdowns of his “personal best jokes” and considers himself an expert on several subjects out of his realm,…) If he takes himself THAT seriously, well, then we have the right to judge his work as seriously as he judges others. I understand that Doug can’t help the fact that he works with a small budget and people who are - let’s face it - untrained amateurs. But to just blindly accept what he does, because “well, they can’t do any better than this”, or to refrain from criticism because “I don’t have an Internet show myself” is far too apologetic. Especially regarding someone who makes a living criticizing bad movies. I have the same problem with Doug’s supposed “self mockery”. Just because he has sometimes poked fun at his own failings doesn’t automatically prove that he can take criticism. All the times he mocked himself he never touches upon the fundamental problems that run throughout his entire work. In fact, when people DO call him out for it he makes a video like the one in “Christmas with the Kranks”. It's not that surprising that many of his former colleagues have left Channel Awesome because of this attitude. They all acknowledge Doug is a sympathetic guy, but lives too much in his own, self-obsessed world. When they criticized his working methods nothing ever changed and he has a talent for turning a blind eye to problems. That’s why Doug’s fanboys and fangirls are effectively creating his downfall. He is already surrounded by yes men at this point and his fans constantly pat him on the head for everything he does, regardless whether it’s actually good. As a result Doug will just continue his path, making more lame spoofs and superficial editorials on the way. Already several of his original fans have grown tired of his formula and see through the fact that his videos are visually impressive, but in terms of content often disappointing..As the scene by scene recreations and factual errors start to pile up many will realize his work is a waste of time compared to people who actually DO put care and effort in their videos, like Brows Held High, Renegade Cut and Half In The Bag and whose videos are genuinly entertaining, properly presented and well researched as a result.

@ kyun

- “From what I can tell Doug is always spot-on”. Well, then you’ve probably never questioned or double checked any statement he makes. Also, an opinion not based on facts or full of factual errors is a worthless opinion.

- I never said anything about vlogs, nor that Doug would have invented it. Even so, any normal person expects a bit more from a vlog than just one or two people providing non-information for several minutes straight.

- I explained above that I have no problem with low budgets, not that I consider that to be Doug's main problem. There are many amateurs on the Net who make wonderful things, despite lack of a high budget.

^A couple of things:

"things he mindboggingly doesn’t understand at his age (the ending of “The Graduate”)"

Could you elaborate here? I only ask because I'm reluctant to believe that you should know certain things at a certain age - not everyone thinks or learns things the same way, after all.

"any normal person expects a bit more from a vlog than just one or two people providing non-information for several minutes straight. "

So anyone who's cool with their style of vlog isn't normal? That seems pretty reductive.

I think you're painting the vlogs in too broad of a stroke. Some of them they do sometimes ramble on, but other times I feel like they offer some genuine insight. Anyway, isn't a vlog supposed to be something approximating a live reaction? That seems to run counter to your desire for an in-depth analysis? How many vlogs do that, anyway?

I'm bothered by the wording because you don't know him, and yet you keep acting like he's a braindead child and anyone else who doesn't think so has issues of their own. And I really don't think I (or a lot of people) pat him on the head, I really love and relate to some of his stuff (like Demo Reel, Kranks and Fury Road was so cathartic) but I can just as easily complain about rape jokes made about Canada, or the Sailor Moon episode. Or as you brought it up, the bad behavior of the CA management. But again, he's also done a lot of stuff that has actually helped me, whether it's clarifying or just helping emotionally, and I can acknowledge both sides.

Also I rewatched 2007/2008 videos recently and they're really not good. If I wanted to see "gay" being used to describe something as bad, or saying "retarded" over and over, I'll go to a comment section.

In my experience, this isn\'t quite so inaccurate. I would however replace \"Yell in a high-pitched voice as often as possible\" with \"Screech at the camera.\"

@ Karkat the Dalek and emeriin

I can understand people being bothered by my negative description of Doug, because I indeed don't know him personally. But neither do you, nor many of his fans. I don't want to hold it against you personally, but I really wonder why fans in general necessarily believe that Doug is incapable of having several shortcomings as a person and/or as a creator? Take the bad management of Channel Awesome, for instance. I read quite some forums about the matter and invariably most fans don't blame Doug, but hold a stronger grudge against Rob and the site's owner Mike Michaud. Simply because they assume Doug is just a tool in their hands and because they love him so much that they can't wrap their minds around the possibility that he might also be a factor behind his employees leaving the site. Of course, the main reason they dislike them is because Rob is less popular than Doug, while Michaud is mostly an invisible entity who never appears in the videos and thus can easily be demonized.

It's true that not everybody learns things at the same age. It's also a fact that people differ in talents, interests or backgrounds. In general I don't mind people being less good than others in some fields. However, it's when people DO seem to to think that they ARE experts in all these matters, despite all signs to the contrary that I start to object. And that's my main issue with Doug. I can easily accept some of his personal flaws. For instance: he often makes spelling mistakes. While others ridicule him for that (including himself) it's clear that he is either dyslexic or just not somebody who reads a lot. Thus I don't blame him for that. He also judges works and issues from the viewpoint of a white American kid who doesn't really understand foreign cultures or subcultures, mostly because he grew up in a different society. This is more irritating, yet - in a way- also understandable. While his review of Sailor Moon was indeed clueless and full of errors it's far from the only video where he just judges things based on what's in the work itself, rather than look a few things up. He did the same when discussing Disney movies and the "Star Wars" franchise, and these were made in his own friggin' country! I'm also not bothered by his offensive jokes, as many other people seem to be, because I still recognize them as just jokes, not serious opinions. What does bother me is that Doug doesn't really think these jokes through, much like a child who assumes something is funny, just because it's shocking.He once talked about Norway in a promo for the Geeky Gamer and illustrated this with a picture of Norwegian criminal Anders Breivik. Naturally people called him out for this. He then apologized by claiming "he didn't really know who the person in the photograph was." So he presumably just typed the word "Norway" online and picked the first person he kind of recognized from somewhere. I understand Doug never meant to glorify Breivik or claim he is the most representative Norwegian. The offensiveness lies more in the fact that this was yet another example of him not caring about research and thus making a regretful "joke" that could have easily been avoided. Because it wasn't really necessary for the review, he had time enough to do a little background check and could have picked several better ways to portray the country.

Doug really has an immature streak to him. I'm willing to believe he is a nice person in general, but from observing him in footage and hearing anecdotes from those who know him personally you do get a sense that he is somewhat a person who mentally never grew up. Even some of his former colleagues have described him as such. Quote Jesu Otaku: """(...) If it's any consolation, I think 'nice' is not an inaccurate positive descriptor for Doug. He's not some horrible asshole. He's nice, as in that Into The Woods line, 'You're not good, you're not bad, you're just nice.' I'm sure many people would find his actions throughout the history of CA to not be malicious or cruel in any way. He is just immature, self-absorbed, terrible at managing or communicating with people...he's just a giant Man Child, and those kinds of people aren't all fun and games, they do serious damage when they refuse to act like adults.""" Even The Nostalgia Chick, who left the site too in early 2015, but on good terms rather than out of spite, acknowledged just like Jesu Otaku did that Doug is a nice person in general """but he is most definitely in his own world, and he seems to have a hard time understanding that not everyone can work with the same relentless pace he does (I never could.) He does have something of a talent for turning a blind eye."""

Doug appears to be someone who just wants to concentrate on "playing around" in his videos and ignore stuff that isn't as fun (the business side, discussing work problems with employees, addressing criticism or mistakes, doing research before making informative videos, ...) He often seems to live within a dream world, shaped by his own creations and what he sees in films and TV. Half of what he makes are attempts to recreate scenes from other media, much like an infant would do. When trying to be heartwarming he puts on a melancholic piano piece, which is a cheap trick used in the most uninspired family sitcoms. When talking about his friendship with his co-actors or addressing how he works so hard for his fans it often feels awkward. I'm willing to believe Doug is sincere, but he clearly doesn't seem to understand there is a veritable difference between what he imagine things to be and how they come across on screen. The bad acting and low budget still shine through at times. His opinions are infantile observations of the adult world. While he makes movies himself and has achieved some professional level of technicality he still judges anything he watches like an average moviegoer. He has a tendency to just ramble about topics ("I like the story, I like the characters, look at the visuals, look at the backgrounds!") and repeat the same things over and over ("The Force in "Star Wars" could be anything. It could be religion. It could be Taoism. It could be the power of God."). Half of the time he is gloating about stuff that really isn't that extraordinarily above average. Doug should really move on beyond the Hollywood products and especially children's media if he is still that amazed by what he witnesses in those. When comparing original movies to their remakes Doug also judges these very superficially ("That character is cooler in the remake than in the original so he is better"), often not counting in Values Dissonance (In "King Kong" he likes Ann Darrow in the 2005 version better than in the 1933 one, because she is not a Damsel In Distress. It's unfair to judge people in past centuries for having a different state of mind than today. Back then that was the norm and not such a cliché as it is today.)

According to the simple vocabulary and opinions Doug uses I often have the impression that he is either a) aiming at a children's audience b) playing a simpleton all the time , even when appearing as himself c) or really a naïve, unworldy adult who grew up behind a TV screen and is only just discovering the world. Since his series often feature swearing, sexual innuendo and violence, as well as content sometimes too complex for infants we can rule out that he specifically tries to reach that demographic. I also doubt he stays in character all the time: he makes the same clueless and awkward comments both in Critic costume, as well as being himself or appearing at Comic Cons. So, unfortunately, he actually seems to be that naïve. Take for instance the video "What's Up With The Ending Of The Graduate"? Just the title alone is baffling. A child might probably not fully understand the ending, but anybody else immediately understands it. I mean, this is not a picture by David Lynch. It's a simple, straightforward mainstream Hollywood movie! Yet Doug treats it as if it's some kind of bizarre mystery ending that he alone knows the answer too. Then he states what everybody already knew. I could name several other instances of Doug making similar naïve, short-minded, error overloaded or Captain Obvious statements in his videos and editorials. It's of course easy to assume you're clever and wise when, like Doug, you only check out the works themselves and don't bother to do some research about them. And if it were only a few minor mistakes here and there it would be passable. But the list of his errors is so huge now that I'm actually amazed he's only made three "Top 11 Mindfucks" by now (where he, by the way, also treats these mistakes as nitpicking by douchy fans in the form of a character actually named that way.)

Now, anybody can make mistakes. Especially when something isn't their field of expertise. But Doug just handwaves all these errors as regrettable or minor incidents, only to continue the same methods that keep creating them. And he still seems to genuinly believe he is educating the masses and owes it to them. You really wonder why so many people take his opinions that seriously? I guess because most of them are either children between the age of 8 to 16, who take things more for granted. Or because they can easily agree with his opinions on a pure basic level ("That movie is bad, because it's boring", "CGI can be good, but shouldn't be used too much", "While many hate this film it does have its good moments."). As for the vlogs, the appeal seems to be that people just enjoy Doug and Rob ranting and making silly jokes. Yet all this doesn't rise above the level of any other amateur in front of a webcam. They never tell you anything they didn't already mention in the NC episodes themselves or anything casual moviegoers couldn't come up with themselves. Thus making these videos nothing but a throwaway product, especially regarding the unnecessary length. Once again, it has nothing to do with the genre itself, for there are far superior vlogs out there.

To conclude, it's great if others found some comfort, fun or wisdom in Doug's videos. I used to find entertainment in them as well. Nobody can deny he is ambitious (and that is certainly a virtue compared to some other webhosts who never even try to put any effort in their work), but Doug simply lacks the qualities or willingness to be a proper reviewer or editorial host. I wish he'd actually put more research in his videos, even if this means they will take longer to produce. Or just concentrate on comedy alone, instead of trying to come off smart while only making a fool of himself in the process.

Too long didn't read.

You take the Nostalgia Critic and Doug Walker way wayyyy too seriously. Who knew an internet comedy series would warrent two rambling long essay type comments that probably took like 3 hours.

Also the King Kong comparison complaint doesn't make sense. Sure King Kong 1933's values are different but 2005's but why should he take that in mind when choosing the female lead? Maybe he considered it and still considered the 2005 female lead to be superior because it is more fresh and interesting take than a woman who just screams helplessly like Princess Peach.

...Okay, was a response of that length really necessary? I wasn't exactly asking for an essay here - I just had some concerns (and I think emeriin did too) about the wording of your arguments, as I found them rather condescending and myopic. To be honest, it's kind of difficult to discuss things when you give a response of that length.

Also:

"often not counting in Values Dissonance (In "King Kong" he likes Ann Darrow in the 2005 version better than in the 1933 one, because she is not a Damsel In Distress. It's unfair to judge people in past centuries for having a different state of mind than today. Back then that was the norm and not such a cliché as it is today.)"

Two things:

• Just because they had a different mindset back then doesn't mean that we should let it go uncriticized - after all, attitudes changed because such things were heavily criticized. I don't think "it was the norm back then" excuses, for example, the blatant racism of Birth of a Nation. Good on King Kong for being so famous and influential - shame on it for indulging in sexist tropes (and racist ones, for that matter).
• Even if we do factor in Values Dissonance, the fact remains that he just doesn't like the trope, and thus of course he's going to prefer the version that doesn't utilize it (at least as much). If you want his honest opinion, I don't think you can ask him to disregard something that he heavily dislikes, and is thus going to color his view of the character.

Why assume that people blame Michaud and Rob more for \"they\'re not as popular as Doug\"? In the JO post, he said Doug stuck his head in the sand and was passive while Rob and Michaud were the actively shitty ones. Nobody\'s saying Doug did nothing wrong, but I think holding more of a grudge towards Michaud/Rob is pretty valid.

While I didn\'t have the time to read everything Patachou wrote, I will single out this comment:

\'In general he thinks that people criticize him for “having changed”. That’s not the point. Change is good and unavoidable after being in the air for so long. The problem is in WHAT way he has changed\'

Bingo, bingo, bingo! In his heart of hearts, Doug seems to believe that the Demo-Reel-Style is OBJECTIVELY better than traditional NC (due to the bigger budget, use of studio, and the combination of story and criticism). He can\'t seem to grasp that Demo Reel MIGHT be a legitimate artistic failure; as a result, he assumes that its detractors object to CHANGE in general. Know what? CHANGE IS GREAT! But nobody wants bad change. If I broke into Doug\'s studio and stole all his equipment, I doubt very much I could comfort him by saying, \"See, I changed your studio! That\'s good!\"

Now whether the Demo-Reel-Style is inferior to the traditional method, that\'s an extremely subjective matter. But if the \"Christmas with the Kranks\" review is any indicator, then Doug really needs to re-think some things. He needs to accept that disliking the Demo-Reel-Style does NOT indicate a dislike for change. It merely indicates a stylistic preference, one which seems to have caused Doug a great deal of cognitive dissonance (\"How couldn\'t they enjoy something which is objectively stronger than before??\")

Okay, I know for a fact that this review was posted below and yet it somehow got back up here. How?

^^ Dude even Lewis pointed out that Doug was doing character and story long before Demo Reel, just has other actors now that he likes and a lot of other people do as well considering Tamara has her own series.

I think this review is wildly unfair, but the point about the plot holes is dead on.

Doug is really bad at realising when he\'s missed something and it\'s a huge problem, because he\'ll accidentally misinform people.

My texts tend to be "long" (not my idea of "long", but I suppose some people here have trouble reading anything longer than a tweet), because I take time to properly respond to what people say. Some may not "have asked for a long text", but then again I haven't asked for the pathetic argument: "I haven't even read your text, but I'm still going to react to it" either. If reacting to a long text is "difficult", well, then don't reply at all. Because you can't discuss something unless you've actually read/seen/listened to it with attention. I really wonder what people like that are doing on TV Tropes, where most pages are even longer than anything I've typed above.Take an example from Awesome Kid 42. He disagreed with most of what I said, but at least he actually read my text in detail and responded to it in the same way. Someone like that we can take seriously. If you are a slow, bad or non-reader: work on it. You really have to learn to read at a quicker level, otherwise you're going experience serious problems in the future. Don't lose faith in yourself: I believe that you CAN make it. :) You have my blessing.

Judging things from the past with present day values is arrogant and unfair. What you perceive as "racist" or "sexist" was not considered offensive by most moviegoers at the time. Sure, you can wave your finger at people for "not being as incredibly clever as we are today". But people in the past had different social codes, ethics and lived in different circumstances than we are used to today. Half of the stuff that is "widely known" today was not that widely known back then. The other half wasn't even invented! Information was not available in one mouseclick. Even if the film crew of "King Kong" wanted to make their female character more than just a damsel in distress: it still wasn't guaranteed that it would pass the censors or be accepted by moviegoers at the time. Same goes for all the things in that 1930s movie that are now considered "old-fashioned", "cliché" or "stereotypes" (see the trope Seinfeld Is Unfunny to get the drift of what I'm saying here). It would be the same as ridiculing cave paintings "because people couldn't draw realistically back then" or saying that Newton was an idiot for not immediately creating the quantum theory while he was working on his gravity theories. Is Doug allowed to like one version over the other? Sure. But to judge things from his own personal, Internet era, white American kid values, without actually taking the period when this picture was made in account: that's just arrogant and ignorant. If you talk about being "condescending" and "unfair": look at the individual you're trying to defend.

Why is holding a bigger grudge against Rob and Michaud than Doug "pretty valid"? All we know about the entire affair are some reports from disgruntled ex-workers. And even they blame Doug for his passiveness and hands off approach when tackling problems. Yet still fans like to think of Doug as some innocent entertainer who just wants to bring joy and happiness to the world and needs to be defended from anyone who dares to make even the slightest critical remark about him. That is what really amazes me. Doug still holds responsibility, people. He is boss over his co-workers, after all...

Funny how people claim I'm "condescending", "overreacting" or "too critical", when most comments here are basically telling me in quite aggressive terms that I have no right to criticize Doug as an artist and that I "take the matter too seriously". Well, let's turn it around. Why should I just blindly accept whatever Doug does? Why should you? We live in a free society, folks. Just like you are allowed to like Doug I have a right to point out substantiated criticism about him. If you enjoy his work: great! Have fun! To all the others: wait until you're a little older and watch more of his episodes with my criticism in mind. You'll understand my analysis a lot better. Especially Doug's lack of research, superficial reviewing and tendency towards big-spectacle of what are in essence lame spoofs.

Someone judging things from modern perspective is arrogant. Because it is unfair to criticize sexist old things, because it is in the past, and a comedy reviewer should definitely take that into consideration totally ignoring that he does not live in 1933, and lives in a world where only mario and zelda still use such damsel in distress tropes.

That is why birth of a nations is still a widely watched movie and not only kept in unis for history and film because the masses sure are good at putting aside that kkk are heroes /s

Oh and we should read fully rambling 7 and 8 page texts because surely op cant discuss his opinions in a short sweet way. /s

Seriously though can anyone actually explain how putting modern lenses on old shit arrogant and unfair? Why is unfair to state somethind old has problematic, sexist, and racist ideas when compared to modern work? I am sure everyone does that all the time. Maybe it ciuld be wrong in a academic field, but even then i am sure they also view old stuff with a modern view. Hell that is why people are deriding and criticizing the killing joke for its shortcomings.

Never mind, I'm tired, enjoy being patronizing to everyone patachou.