Follow TV Tropes
Doug Walker is not a very good comedian.
Doug Walker is not a good writer.
Doug Walker is not a good editor or businessman.
So why, at one point did this site worship the ground he walked on?(pun very much intended)
Like if i'm being honest with you here, his comedic writing is Big Bang Theory-quality at best and at worst it resembles those shit "parody" films that the Wayans Bros and Seltzer/Friedberg used to make. his choice of manic, random access comedy just does not work with the length of his reviews which, right now clock at around 25-50 minutes approximatly. Who can actually bear to watch a 40 something scream at a film for that long?!, I would rather get a testicle tattoo than do that ffs.
The "reviews" are sometimes not even actual critiques but are just parody sketches that like I said earlier make Seltzer/Friedberg look like Parker and Stone. Poor acting, bad greenscreen Chroma Key set design and shallow observations directed towards his review subject make watching the reviews a waste of time and resorce.
Peace out homeboyz "audible mic drop"
Eh, I was pretty young and his comedy style amused me, even if I now don\'t find his work funny. It was a different time- less good content creators to choose from, and he was entertaining by comparison.
I like the character stuff mostly. Hyper is relatable (Stalker with a Crush trying to move on and be better) and all the relationships tend to be sweet.
The general view is he\'s someone you grow out of. He was big in the pre-youtube days amongst teenagers, back when comedic reviews were a fresh idea. But when you look back on them now, you realise how weak the shtick actually was.
I also have little patience for people who make videos of their opinions that are much more than 20 minutes long. Having people give their time to listen to your opinion is a privilege, and as such, it behooves you to express your opinion concisely.
I do think part of the problem is his stuff got longer and longer, and that as he tried to do more and more skits that soaked up runtime, the product suffered.
Another part is that a lot of his peers have commented that there's only so far you can go with the Caustic Critic watching clips of the movie/show and insulting it schtick before you start to feel creatively unfulfilled and want to try to do something different, deeper, more analytical. I hold up Bennett The Sage as an example of someone who managed to do so fairly well with his Anime Abandon program, even when I often sharply disagree with his tastes and analyses.
Unfortunately, Doug's attempts to do so have instead revealed that he often has a rather shallow and limited understanding of the things he critiques, and that he tends to get a bit of a martyr complex when he doesn't like something popular. And the skits haven't helped.
I won't pretend I didn't like some of his earlier material, like the Conan films, but I admit much of it has aged poorly and his newer material just got less and less for me as time went by. There was never a time I drew a line in the sand and walked away or anything; I never even found out about some of the messed-up stuff until other creators' TV Tropes pages started reporting on the Change the Channel thing. I just got less and less interested in each new video until I realized I hadn't watched one for months, watched the first few minutes of his new It video, and then shrugged and closed the window when it wasn't for me either.
I do dispute Valiona's claim, though, that longer film reviews are always self-indulgent. I am rather fond of the work of SF Debris, whose film videos skew longer because he is willing to dig very deeply into the fabric of the film, the ideas of the filmmakers, and even into why what works works or doesn't work. It is his ability to tap into a deeper, richer vein of criticism and idea that makes his opinions worth my time, and Doug's seeming inability, or at least, his self-indulgent preference for farting around with weird, unfunny skits instead of doing so, that turns away my interest in the here and now.
I agree, I actually like longer videos because a lot of those videos tend to be filled with more informative content and analysis, which I appreciate. (It\'s why I like Phelan so much now, and creators like Night Mind.)
The problem is that not exactly the length I find abhorrent: it's the lack of any interesting, insightful or funny content that pads the runtime out that I think takes the absolute piss IMO.
I mean there's a justification for informative reviews since the long length actually matters. I can't say the same for comedic reviews because comedy skits live and die by their brevity and rapid fire pacing, which are two things NC lacks in his current output.
Then simply, you aren\'t part of his demography. Simply because you don\'t like something doesn\'t mean is bad. Haven\'t you ever heard that opinions are subjective?.
I simply like him because his sense of humor tends to align with mine, nothing more nothing less. I also tend to separate the art from the artist, so I don\'t care at all about the \"change the channel\" controversy. I never understood why I should care what every content creator I interact with via their products does in their personal lives. Meanwhile I like the product they produce, I wont have any other issue.
It\'s true that long opinion videos aren\'t always self-indulgent; there are times when they can do deeper and more comprehensive analysis than short ones. That being said, it can be a difficult sell to ask me to sit for more than half an hour and listen to a video that isn\'t necessarily well-made, particularly if it\'s an opinion I disagree with.
Part of the problem I have with long video essays is the medium. While reading long text-based essays may not be everyone\'s cup of tea, I can read more quickly than I listen to someone reading slowly enough to be understood. It\'s also easier to skim an article or take a peek to see if it\'s worth reading more in depth, as well as to find certain passages. Another part is that video creators don\'t always use the medium to its fullest extent, since some may simply deliver their message over still images or B-roll. In cases like those, I find myself asking myself, \"What couldn\'t have been conveyed if the video creator had simply published a transcript of the video?\" and find that often, the answer is \"Not much.\"
Speaking of questions, my point is that the video makers should ask themselves, \"Does the video need to be this long?\" The video makers, as well as some commenters in this review, will probably say, \"Yes, it does,\" and I can\'t fault them for that, but it\'s something anyone who expresses their opinion and asks people to listen to it should consider.
His style runs on charm. If you do not find his angry man-child act endearing to some degree, his videos will be unbearable. I think he has generally improved over time, but has also run out of easy material to mock; not entirely a bad thing, as mixed reviews can be more interesting, but it means that while I find his early videos consistent but often grating, his recent ones are hit-or-miss. (And this is leaving aside the controversy.) I loved the Mad Max and X-men reviews, while others I find unwatchable.
When it comes to analysis, he is not a patch on Lindsay Ellis. However this relates to the length of his videos, as Valiona refers to: he doesn\'t do video essays, his manner of delivery is crucial to his schtick. While I treat Lindsay Ellis and other in-depth stuff as podcasts or audiobooks (listening to them while doing something menial), NC videos I need to watch to enjoy. There was a time when he let skits drag on far too long, though, and I\'m glad he keeps them short now.
But to address the starting review: I think he was always a bit overrated. He was at the forefront of a trend that he has struggled to keep up with.
Leave a Comment:
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?