|
BottledBodhisvata posted:Yeah but gently caress commercials jesus Christ. gently caress marketing people, gently caress advertisers, gently caress commercials, and gently caress you for forcing me to watch them, making them pop-ups, interrupting my poo poo with more commercials... For the longest time I didn't even know YouTube had commercials since I always used adblock.
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Andrast posted:For the longest time I didn't even know YouTube had commercials since I always used adblock. Youtube is one place I always block no matter what since their video player is the shittiest thing and breaks constantly so if you have to refresh because something THEIR loving END shits up you have to watch the ad again. Even more amusing is say there's a trailer for a new game or whatnot. A lot of times you basically have to watch an ad before an ad 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Tracula posted:http://spoonyexperiment.com/vlogs/spoony-april-hate-the-amazing-spider-man-2/ Watched a few minutes of this, saw Spoony yell at his girlfriend a lot. What fun she must be having.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Has Miles ever done any review stuff outside of Spoonys vlogs?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Terminal Entropy posted:Has Miles ever done any review stuff outside of Spoonys vlogs? No. Miles is a cop in real life. He was only a part of Noah's vlogs when he was on leave of absence.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Following Twitter and seeing all the producers infighting and reacting so strongly to this article is just great.Terminal Entropy posted:Has Miles ever done any review stuff outside of Spoonys vlogs? He has a blog where he reviews movies, but I don't have the link anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:You're throwing a lot of weight on Louis to have some kind of ten year plan before you give him cash. Pump that well, motherfuckers. As far as Doug Walker is concerned: a bunch of people made a ton of money in the Klondike once upon a time, but there's a reason no one's panning for gold as anything but a hobby these days. Ads still technically work, if you can maintain the volume, but the volume needed to get above the poverty line is north of 200,000 impressions per month, every month. The fact that some people can and do pull that kind of an audience (and bigger) is the sole reason that internet advertising hasn't collapsed completely, but taken as a whole right now ad revenue is at this razor equilibrium where the returns from a single unobtrusive sidebar ad are barely more than the cost of hosting the site the ads are on, and that's assuming that the heavy lifting is being offloaded to a service like Blip or YouTube, and we already know that ads on Blip aren't covering Blip's overhead.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
quote:The reason I'm giving that "let the ads play" video so much poo poo is because it was an incredibly short sighted response to a problem that was never going to get better. This is not at all a rebuttal to BottledBodhisvata's point. So ad revenue might be going away, so what? What about that justifies your disdain and disgust?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
I never really understood why people get SO worked up about ads. Anyway, two minuets into NC's review on The Lorax and it's already awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:I never really understood why people get SO worked up about ads. http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/nostalgia-critic/43234-the-lorax The best part was when he said about ambiguity is a good thing to teach kids. Personally I just see this film as a worse version of The Wolf of Wall Street, if that makes any sense. That and him calling out the fact that the movie calls out shills while still being shills themselves. Annointed fucked around with this message at 00:21 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Annointed posted:The best part was when he said about ambiguity is a good thing to teach kids. Personally I just see this film as a worse version of The Wolf of Wall Street, if that makes any sense. You...Might need to explain that for me, cause it doesn't make sense. Edit: BLACK WILLIY WANKA!? 
BigRed0427 fucked around with this message at 00:29 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:You...Might need to explain that for me, cause it doesn't make sense. Onceler starts out as a decent guy making it and eventually turns into a greedy rear end in a top hat. Just without the taste, class and effective social commentary.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
LFK posted:You have entirely missed the point: it doesn't make one lickity poo poo of a difference whether your show format is new, fresh, hip, old, desiccated, or ancient, if you're relying on ad revenue you're chaining yourself to a very old, very fickle revenue stream that has basically always been poo poo. Grow your audience in any way you want, you should, but that's 100% beside the point that where your money is coming from is a deeply broken system that's only become less and less stable as time has gone on. If you're relying on ad revenue then that's the market you're beholden to. The reason I'm giving that "let the ads play" video so much poo poo is because it was an incredibly short sighted response to a problem that was never going to get better. Again, Lewis sells DVDs and other merchandise. He's not chaining himself to one source of income, he just asking politely, if you can, let the ads play. That's like saying because others steal from the system it's your own fault.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:This is not at all a rebuttal to BottledBodhisvata's point. So ad revenue might be going away, so what? What about that justifies your disdain and disgust? Well, considering BottledBodhisvata's point is "if you don't have a job you love clearly you're an idiot", I'm not sure what there is there to rebut. LFK made his point far better than I could have, but that was what I was getting at- it had nothing to do with whether video reviewing is "real" work or not. That said, in this case, the debate was about whether or not (for instance) Lewis can or should sustain his current business model without changing anything about his show, and therefore explaining to people why he wants to do this thing rather than trying to expand his audience or explore different income streams. Those power rangers costumes aren't going to pay for themselves, I know, but still. Why is one guaranteed a living wage just because they put in a lot of hard work? What about those full-time rock climbers? Or, hell, the self-published starry eyed dreamers on Amazon? Are they guaranteed a living wage just because they put in a lot of work? I fully agree that there is a sense of entitlement where entertainment is concerned, and using adblock is very similar to the music download debates of the early 00's. But adblock isn't the only element at play here, there are many, many elements at play- the market (or, "our lord", if you will) changes, the prices of ads change, the volume of viewers change. One year you could make a living, but the next year maybe not. That is the price you pay for choosing the route of the non-Olive Garden. It is, by its very nature, deeply, deeply fickle. And since video reviewing is such uncharted territory, I think it's safe to say that we can't yet quantify the wisdom of doing this sort of thing full time, for years on end, but if one does this sort of thing for years and somehow manages not to develop a marketable skillset that they can use to supplement their income should the ad-based or subscription based no longer provide them a living wage, then it might have been poor planning. Whether or not "new model" is just as viable as the "old model", most people still view the old model where you go to work, get a paycheck and go home as more viable, and making videos for YouTube is a lucrative hobby. Like knitting for an Etsy store. I don't know how fast, or if, that attitude will change. As for Lewis, Patreon should keep him afloat for now should he choose to use it, but I think when people wince at the whole "industry", it has much to do with the fact that the people who make their livings this way don't have much in the way of marketable skills outside of this very, very limited skillset. It has nothing to do with wanting to see someone else suffer just because we the worker grunts have to work at the Olive Garden and want him to, as well. Lewis's video turned me off, because it basically telegraphed "I don't want to change the way I do things, and I don't see why I should have to."
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
I think the disconnect is that I'm not sure what you want in terms of him changing things? Lupa's pointed out that he does have other stuff that viewers can buy. I suppose if your assumption is that he's making less because fewer people are watching, but the point of the ad video seemed to be 'same number of people watch, but less watch ads'. Let's assume that's the case. He's got the same number of viewers, the ad rate hasn't changed that much... what should he change, in your mind, to 'fix' things that isn't making a little post to point out that skipping the ads screws producers out of money? A fact that a lot of teens and younger people who watch this stuff, don't realise. I suspect you're assuming that people bringing the adblock thing up ARE losing viewers, and I'm sure some are, but adblocking software is way more widely known about now than even 3 years ago. Is the wider use of that not also a factor? And I suppose it may also depend on if you consider using such software, if you regularly consume someone's content, as a wrong. If not, then being asked to turn it off probably sounds like a busybody nagging you when they could be doing something 'better'. If you do see it as a problem, then politely suggesting not to seems a valid method, in addition to other things, in addressing it
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
The whole thing comes as hypocritical, coming from someone whose tone goes somewhere between Johnny Test and Toad's Voice and couldn't even figure out on actual movie shlock the motivations behind human trauma and attachment to kids and pets or dare I say pursuing an interest that isn't either STEM or a creative area is going to lecture a bunch of strawmen executives on *how to create a movie for children* and *pedagogy*. A man who overlaid the overtired concern trolling of starving african children over a movie he didn't like. A man whose intro started with him shooting the camera behind cgi fire while frowning. Tripe like this illustrates exactly the point that the article writer wrote. Sorry, talking about that Lorax review. Kunster fucked around with this message at 01:21 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Kunster posted:The whole thing comes as hypocritical, coming from someone whose tone goes somewhere between Johnny Test and Toad's Voice and couldn't even figure out on actual movie shlock the motivations behind human trauma and attachment to kids and pets or dare I say pursuing an interest that isn't either STEM or a creative area is going to lecture a bunch of strawmen executives on *how to create a movie for children* and *pedagogy*. A man who overlaid the overtired concern trolling of starving african children over a movie he didn't like. A man whose intro started with him shooting the camera behind cgi fire while frowning. What. Like, I can barely parse that.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
What I'm saying that Nostalgia Critic/Doug Walker has messed up so much times in terms of tone and analysis, both in the past and present, that he has jack poo poo to stand on to criticize the Lorax Movie. He's the kind of person that made me sympathize with loving Anakin Skywalker when he screamed "No" on the 3rd Star Wars Movie.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Kunster posted:What I'm saying that Nostalgia Critic/Doug Walker has messed up so much times in terms of tone and analysis, both in the past and present, that he has jack poo poo to stand on to criticize the Lorax Movie. Isn't Doug the one who consistently hasn't 'gotten' movies? Like something bad'll happen in a film and he seems to not understand why a character would react a specific way?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Skunny Wundy posted:Following Twitter and seeing all the producers infighting and reacting so strongly to this article is just great. His blog site is right here http://moviemoses.wordpress.com/
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Yes, like him telling the ID4 Mom and Kid to get over the dog and buy a new one as soon as possible, being baffled on Signs as to why a child would emotionally shutdown after seeing her dog attack her and seeing it being brutalized by her brother and calling the surfer kid on that hockey movie psychotic for gasp, missing the sea after living his whole life as a surfer. The Lorax movie is horrible garbage. I'm not being a dick over this out of love for the movie. Kunster fucked around with this message at 01:32 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Kunster posted:What I'm saying that Nostalgia Critic/Doug Walker has messed up so much times in terms of tone and analysis, both in the past and present, that he has jack poo poo to stand on to criticize the Lorax Movie. Well Roger Ebert could still make valid criticisms despite making Beyond The Valley of the Dolls. Doug is not Roger Ebert.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Ehh, I like Doug's reviews. I think he is funny and I'm there more for the jokes then deep, Plinkett level of film analysis.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Well Roger Ebert could still make valid criticisms despite making Beyond The Valley of the Dolls. Roger Ebert didn't make several Beyond Of The Valley Of The Dolls...es.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
A 30 second ad doesn't seem like a big deal if I like the video. I just zone out and look at another tab, or in extremely annoying cases, just mute them. The YouTube advert with Mike J mocking that Flora advert that Blip plays constantly was a nice surprise, honestly.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Kunster posted:Roger Ebert didn't make several Beyond Of The Valley Of The Dolls...es. That reminds me. Have the people who were in Kickassia, Suburban Knights, etc. reacted much to the criticism of the movies? I'm just curious how well critics take criticism
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Kunster posted:The whole thing comes as hypocritical, coming from someone whose tone goes somewhere between Johnny Test and Toad's Voice and couldn't even figure out on actual movie shlock the motivations behind human trauma and attachment to kids and pets or dare I say pursuing an interest that isn't either STEM or a creative area is going to lecture a bunch of strawmen executives on *how to create a movie for children* and *pedagogy*. A man who overlaid the overtired concern trolling of starving african children over a movie he didn't like. A man whose intro started with him shooting the camera behind cgi fire while frowning. I never thought I'd say this but I don't think you 'get' what NC does? Like, for someone supes mad about being dumb on tone and all you legit don't seem to understand half his bit is he's an irrational idiot about things? Also what does that have to do with Lorax being complete garbage juice?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Tracula posted:That reminds me. Have the people who were in Kickassia, Suburban Knights, etc. reacted much to the criticism of the movies? I'm just curious how well critics take criticism Phelous has made fun of them a few times, I think?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Ok, time to offer my view on this whole debacle!Miss Wallace posted:We seem to live in an age where people think promotion is begging and profit is desperation. We should be able to make money regardless of our financial situation. It's a sense of entitlement that really bothers me. I understand stigma against e-begging, people posting wishlists, and things like that, but ads cost you nothing and Patreon offers perks. Nothing is being taken away from anyone. Miss Wallace posted:"The minimum wage just got lowered. What're you upset about? Just work more." I wasn't overly upset by the article - I think it had some vague points to make, but above all, I decided that it should be something to be ignored. I don't really think there is a vast amount of difference between forms of criticism. Every form of criticism has the possibility of being informed, whether it's amateur, professional, blog-based, podcast based or, yes, video based. I've read plenty of print reviews where I thought the reviewer didn't really have their head screwed on, for instance. Every reviewer has their own tastes, and we need to take that into account (I very much disagree with Ebert on Blue Velvet, for instance.) I suppose, also, the form of criticism that I, as a reviewer, do is different to what people tend to think of when they think of video reviewers, as it's more based on subject matter, and a background in the arts, instead of a background in fandom. I'm not reviewing things that really have a substantial fandom (apart from reviewing Sherlock Holmes, I suppose), so I'm not approaching things in a stereotypically geekish way. Yes, a lot of my earlier stuff was what I'd describe as rather silly, but I'm trying to go more for a sense of informed criticism, which comes from my background in artistic criticism. For me, I quickly realised that this was only going to be a hobby, and I wasn't going to make more than a little money off it, so I don't worry too much about the money, and instead I focus more on people's reactions, and engaging with my viewers. Being small time has its advantages, as the engagement I tend to receive is positive, and people tend to be OK with me sharing something personal. I also think that being funny and being light-hearted isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor is a little theatrics. True, I tend more towards being serious and scholarly, but I think there's a place for all different kinds of tone - and someone like Lupa clearly puts in the thinking and the research even when she's being flippant. Also, some works really only can be treated flippantly, like..well, Baywatch for instance. Wanting some form of renumeration for working at providing entertainment is a very fair point, and it's one that I understand, given that I come from a background in visual art. Creative skills aren't valued by a lot of people, because they're seen purely as things that should only ever be hobbies, and should never be taken seriously in any way. We dismiss the skills of artists and musicians and actors, while very happily consuming the entertainment they provide. Yes, I will agree that just because you do the arts, you aren't necessarily entitled a good living wage for it (and many people in the arts know that thinking this way isn't practical, meaning that we have to do other work) - but dismissing any notion of self respect that someone in the arts has, the idea that their skills are worth anything at all....that's a whole other game. You shouldn't expect payment necessarily, but along the same lines, you, as a consumer of entertainment, shouldn't demand to be entertained at no financial cost to yourself. That goes for everyone (please don't ask a knitter to knit you a jumper unless you're prepared to at least pay them for the cost of the wool - it's not a cheap hobby.) Sorry, I've rambled on a lot - but the basic principle is - the line between professional and amateur is a thin one, and so in some senses it's unfair to dismiss all amateurs out of hand completely and it's not unreasonable to desire some kind of recognition or renumeration if people are consuming your work (I wouldn't go on Paetron myself since I don't think there's a big market for what I do, and for me it is more of a hobby - one which I often put on hold when I'm busy working or whatever else). Also...Kyle is possibly a little too easily upset. It's fine to recognise that critics might have a point, it's another to let it kill you. OldMemes posted:A 30 second ad doesn't seem like a big deal if I like the video. I just zone out and look at another tab, or in extremely annoying cases, just mute them. Yes, this is what I do - I mute the sound, go and make a cup of tea/look at another tab and then watch the video when the ads have stopped playing. It surprises me that a lot of people just haven't considered this option.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Tracula posted:That reminds me. Have the people who were in Kickassia, Suburban Knights, etc. reacted much to the criticism of the movies? I'm just curious how well critics take criticism Doug released a set of reviews for the various anniversary specials as DVD exclusives called the "Plot Hole Reviews" where he tears apart his own work as the Nostalgia Critic as the Critic himself, pretty viciously, I might add. They're up on YouTube, but I'm not sure if that falls into  or not...
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I never thought I'd say this but I don't think you 'get' what NC does? Like, for someone supes mad about being dumb on tone and all you legit don't seem to understand half his bit is he's an irrational idiot about things? Yeah, Doug isn't doing a serious analysis of a movie. He's playing a character (who is a whiny manchild in a lot of ways) mocking mostly terrible movies. Watching any of his out of character stuff shows that he's smarter than the critic at least. EDIT: And I've never had the impression they take any of the anniversary films too seriously.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
So Film Crit Hulk has just released a new textwall. What does everyone think of the guy. In general, I think he has some excellent things to say but his shtick is awful. It's so false and calculated (which is ironic considering Hulk's fondness for making sweeping rhetorical statements about capital S Sincerity) and lazy (the guy makes no attempt to write in character and, I suspect, uses his gimmick as an excuse not to edit, or to edit only lightly, because no one expects anything written by the Hulk to be polished) and it betrays a really condescending, if not outright contemptuous, attitude toward his audience. I really want to write high minded film criticism and think pieces, every Hulk essay screams from between the lines, but you wouldn't read it so I've geek-baited it up some. High Warlord Zog fucked around with this message at 04:02 on May 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
One thing I got out of RLM's patreon: New Half in the Bag tomorrow!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
OldMemes posted:A 30 second ad doesn't seem like a big deal if I like the video. I just zone out and look at another tab, or in extremely annoying cases, just mute them.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:I just mute my computer honestly and go on another tab I had an ex who got intensely angry at any ad before a video. If he saw literally one second of ad he would proudly proclaim "NOPE!  " and then close the tab, never to reopen it. There are a lot of people who feel obligated to free content online and it just utterly baffles me.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
High Warlord Zog posted:So Film Crit Hulk has just released a new textwall. He actually did used to write more Hulk-ishly, and he has explained why he picked the gimmick (and why he's toned it down). In short, it's an attempt to get people to engage with the argument, not focus on his personality. I'm not sure it works, but I get the idea of writing in someone else's voice so it's not about your bias, but about the discussion. People also complained that the more Hulk-speak articles were too hard to read, so he toned it down. I... I don't dislike him, but I do disagree with him a fair amount, enough that I stopped reading regularly. His live-tweets of Transformers 2 and his article about Eat Pray Love are still hilarious, though.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
I got to ask: Does anybody actually thinks that Doug Walker's videos are actual criticism of movies? Because they are not, in the same way that the Daily Show isn't new. He simply uses "movie criticism" as a background for jokes. It's kind of silly to fault him for not being like "At the Movies" when that was never the intention. The intent of the reviews is clearly to entertain, not to help inform any kind of opinion about the movies that are reviewed.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
How did people who make a living off of the internet survive before Patreon?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:So this article is making the rounds http://moviemezzanine.com/putting-the-geek-to-the-plow/ The most useful information I got out of this is that Entertainment Weekly are scumbags who fired their film critics in favour of having a bunch of interns/forum users do it for free, and that anybody who tries to actually do this work for them is basically volunteering to be screwed over. Everything else is misinformed meandering mostly focusing on TGwtG and how they aren't "real" reviewers because reasons, using probably the best reviewer on the site as his goto example for how the entire site is doing it "wrong", and pointing out that they have names like Bad Movie Beatdown and DVD-R Hell and thus that means they don't "get it". I'll admit, using reviews as a means to entertain in and of themselves instead of providing opinions and thoughts on entertainment is a rather new thing, but it fits internet culture's DIY nature like a glove so it's only natural that the few that are dedicated enough to make these shows into their livelihoods deserve some recognition as legit entertainers through reviews. I'll also admit that they, too, are getting screwed over since, you know, they're self-employed to make free video content for the internet. Can't not get screwed over when you're giving your work away. High Warlord Zog posted:So Film Crit Hulk has just released a new textwall. He's great. Even when I disagree with him I feel like I still learned something. But holy hell every single article is a book and sometimes I just don't feel like setting aside two hours to read one guy's thoughts on Spider-Man.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
I really like Film Critic Hulk-- he has interesting insights on film critique, film structure, and the film industry, and lots of it. Lots of it, which can sometimes be a problem-- reading what amounts to a novella in HULK-SPEAK is pretty tiring, and that's all the gimmick ever really amounts to. Not that I want him to go into detailed storylines or anything, but if that's all the gimmick is, why even have it? Also, some of his theories come across as too twee for my tastes-- his top ten movies of 2013 had 12 #1s, for instance, and he's quick to dub something a masterpiece. But overall, I do enjoy his stuff, and even the twee stuff is refreshing after the negativity echo chamber you sometimes get. Even when he's ripping something apart, he's only doing it to show you what's inside-- he's not spiteful or silly or gimmicky (except for ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME). The rest of Badass Digest isn't to my tastes. Some recs: This analysis of the failings of "Man of Steel" (and a broader conversation on character development in blockbusters) is pretty good. And it's only 18,000 words long! (Yes.) If you're into writing or understanding the mechanics of film at the structural level, he wrote basically a book about screenwriting here and here (and here, as an actual book).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 03:45
|
|