|
Post by frobman on Oct 22, 2010 21:07:07 GMT
Hmmm... Roger doing a review... that could be something. At least as a one off thing.
|
|
matt75
Social Reject
Posts: 13
|
Post by matt75 on Oct 23, 2010 0:42:46 GMT
Pretty nice overall.
|
|
|
Post by Eyz on Oct 23, 2010 10:48:06 GMT
*checks previous comms* Oh yeah, that was something I actually like about your take on reviews! You weren't, like, forcing your opinion on us, but merely stating facts and your voice. Something I sort of dislike about, and don't watch anymore, Nostalgia Critic these days (I can quote his name on our forums right?) is that when he hates something he sort of makes his point to "brainwash" kids into hating it too. (like poor ol' Schwarzy... I never saw someone else hate so much Scharzennegger... when he insults his acting, his voice..almost racist sometimes... :/ seriously!)
Anyway, what I meant was, it was a good review in the sense that it was really that, a review! Unlike those random youtube "reviewers" kids "I HATE XYZ! It SUCKS!! ROFL!LOLXD 1!1!!11!"
|
|
|
Post by frobman on Oct 23, 2010 11:28:07 GMT
(like poor ol' Schwarzy... I never saw someone else hate so much Scharzennegger... when he insults his acting, his voice..almost racist sometimes... :/ seriously!) Does he? He has gone on many times about how he loves Arnie and what not. Just that half of his movies aren't as good, but he still loves his charms and all. Hell, he even went to his museum in Austria. (That, and everybody watching him take his word a "bit" too serious. In that, I mean "A LOT"!)
|
|
|
Post by rogerfromimp on Oct 23, 2010 12:17:08 GMT
Yeah, Doug Walker occasionally states that the nostalgia critic is just a character, almost a villian ish character and you shouldn't take him too seriously. But Doug makes the line between "this is just an act" and "this is my real opinion" a little too blurry most of the time.
That's what i dislike about a lot of these reviewers. Altough Cinema Snob is one of my more favorites, he stated that his character is supposed to be a stab at snobby reviewers dismissing exploitation movies that they shouldn't have any bussines with to begin with, but that angle of the character is rarely explored. Especially since the cinema snob admits in-character that he only likes exploitation movies, which is exactually against the point of the character. Plus his constant swearing also puts some distance between the character and true cinema snobs, despite that he got the perfect voice and arogance for the character. Which is another reason why I dislike too much swearing. It's okay for the angry videogame nerd since that's the point of the character, but for most other imitators it's just cheap.
|
|
|
Post by hyrit on Oct 24, 2010 11:49:20 GMT
digitalfate: Yeah I know! And that while I didn't like Titanic that much :/ I mean, it holds a special place between drama/romance lovers, but Im more of a comedy/parody/action/adventure kind of movie watcher ^^; rogerfromimpGeez dude, you really made work on that comment! And thank you very much for that critism Unfortunatly my second review is already filmed and currently being edited, so I can only hold true to your expectations in my third review (or re-do everything for the second review I've done so far *GASP* Lemme answer to your negative points though And thank you very much for the positive feedback, too 1. Yeah, Im no actor, never took lessons, and I myself also didn't found myself very convincing...heck I even think I sound bored during the review XD 2. I really was having a hard time taking Mrs Kirby seriously, so even in hysterical situations I just hated everything she did, sorry if I not took panic in the situation, but frankly, she didn't convince me, and as I promised not to ramble about a actor, I made it my point to let the viewer see my opinion on her character 3. ahaha, I didn't make the references because I really don't like jokes like that myself ^^; when I watch a review and let's say a character is named Yoshi, then its FAR too predictable to place a picture of yoshi over it and go 'No...not THAT Yoshi', and I dislike references like that, they bother me ^^; 4. Yeah, I really should've showed the clip of Grant's last words to Billy, I slapped myself on the forehead when you stated that, thats a complete blunder. 5. Ah yes the cursing, actually only when I completly had rendered the movie I noticed my swearing, especially in the beginning with the paraglider scene. I say F*** World, Helicopter AND Ocean within like 15 seconds, so you are right I should improve that. And this was something I noticed myself so my second review already will have less sweary I hope 6. The point of finding my own place among reviewers is a good point too. As I myself like to just GET ON WITH IT instead of ramble too long on one subject, I tend to just pooint out things that annoy me without actually making it an amusing scene, and i really should improve that. 7. Well if I point out Hollywood problems then I should be a VERY basic reviewer wouldn't I? XD; I mean, everyone who sees movies every week notices patterns, at least I hope people notice that, because I ain't gonna point them out all the time XD I refuse that EyzNC does what he does best, he whines about stuff that annoys him and makes it his statement that you should think the same thing, seeing as his opinion is better then yours (he actually says that in a few of his top ten reviews) The guy Doug Walker on the other hand is actually a nice and levelheaded fellow, at least he seems like so to me. When I saw his 'Rick Roll' video (titled Best Video Ever or something) he really came over as a guy who just wants to have fun at what he does, and I respect that.
|
|
|
Post by rogerfromimp on Oct 24, 2010 13:19:43 GMT
3. ahaha, I didn't make the references because I really don't like jokes like that myself ^^; Well, I DESPISE puns, yet I often use them anyway. Why? Well, I never use the puns themselves AS the joke, but I use them to inspire or introduce the joke. Like in one IMP episode, I had this "Rooftop chase" pun. But instead of going the sitcom route by having a character go "Rooftop chase? Is that when roofs chase each other (laughtrack)" I never explain the joke but instead immediatly cue to an actual chase scene with roofs racing trough the streets. This way I get multiple layer of jokes with A) the pun itself B) the absurd imagary of skycrapers racing trough the city C) A chase satire, I can use every cliché from generic chase scenes and translate them too the skycraper theme (Police stations chasing the heroes instead of a police car) D) Logical jokes. I can think about what logical problems would arise if you had an actual rooftop racing trough the streets, like how would inhabitants react in the skycraper, etcetera. So starting with one (lame) pun, I create an entire scene, heck, world that leads into several more layers of comedy. I see jokes like ingriedents; Satire, puns and slapstick is like Flour, milk and little chocolates. Sometimes taste good, sometimes bad by themselves, but mix them together and you get a super delicious cake. I doubt eating pure flour could taste good, but I do recognise it as a vital ingriedent for cake. I dislike pure puns and references, but sometimes they are the key to a whole new crazy world. So back to your review, just cutting to videogame Kirby would be weak, but if you include a few "Just suck those dinosaurs up and use their powers, like your other Kirby cousin" mentions, the reference joke get's an extra layer of complexity and scores a few bonus laughs. Plus you never make the obvious joke itself, in fact you'd immediatly assume the audience already put 2 and 2 together, so the joke hits harder when audiences "get it". (The more steps of tought the audience has to take to get the joke, the more difficult the jokes becomes to understand, but the higher the reward will be when people "get it". The secret of good jokes is finding the right balance in making audiences think but still give them enough hints to not completely lose them) As I myself like to just GET ON WITH IT instead of ramble too long on one subject, True, but you have to have SOME depth to your points. Otherwise your review is just 5 minutes of "this is stupid, this is stupid, this is stupid, movie is stupid, the end." You need to have some line of logic and expectations to follow. Which you indeed have in your review. So treasure them and don't fear to linger a bit longer on them These are the soul, the heart, the meat of the review. Just like with the rooftop chase, let the flaws of the movie invite the viewer into a deeper world of madness. ..well, that's my technique anyway. Most of the people here prefer more surface jokes, so maybe it's just me. The point is that you keep feeding NEW information to the audience tough. You can linger on one topic as long as you like, as long as your rant keeps hitting new spots of interest and digs deeper. Devar's antagonist review of Bowser was too long not because of the length, but because he lingers to long on details that aren't relevant, or keeps repeating himself to much. But that doesn't mean it's wrong to go indepth. Just stay relevant. 7. Well if I point out Hollywood problems then I should be a VERY basic reviewer wouldn't I? XD; I mean, everyone who sees movies every week notices patterns, You'd be suprised how little people see these over recurring issues. I don't say you should explain these over arching themes over and over again, I say you should use it to make some sort of a running gag, because these elements WILL return in future reviews. kinda like Film Brain's "SYMBOLISM!" altough that's way to simplistic for my tastes, but that's the idea. I'm not saying you should but the entire explanation in your review and get a running time of 3 hours, I'm just inviting you to think about these elements and let them inspire you for a over arching running gag that will be your "thing", your big joke in future episodes. After all, online shows seem to strive on recognizeble oneliners. Yu Gi Oh abridged being a super example of that. Altough I guess you don't need a rich philosophy behind your running gags, most of Yu Gi Oh Abridged jokes seem to be completely random.. But my "whee" does have a full philosophy behind it, for example.
|
|
|
Post by hyrit on Oct 24, 2010 19:40:13 GMT
@roger I have some serious thinking to do about non-seriousness, sensei
|
|
|
Post by Devar on Oct 25, 2010 13:09:36 GMT
I for one enjoyed the Jurassic Park III review but of course much like most reviewers you need to find a style that's not only original (which is more harder then one would think) but also works for you that people can find believable and relate to. I mean I had the feeling with the camera angle stuff like we were in the room with you (which I liked a lot) like as if you invited us over to watch a movie as you would with friends so you could probably work with that.
Other then that I am not sure about negative comments as some of them were only minor like I too felt you should not swear so much though funny yes but with phrases like "Why not use a F'ing helicopter" would still be funny without it so it just feels kinda tacked on but as Roger mentioned it already I do not need to go war and peace on this one XD. As for acting I found it not bad and not good but I am sure you will get better at that, I mean people like Doug and Noah never started as being believable till later on in their productions, anyway can't wait to see how your reviewing skills will grow and get into your own groove for reviewing.
|
|
|
Post by Eyz on Oct 26, 2010 9:09:53 GMT
EyzNC does what he does best, he whines about stuff that annoys him and makes it his statement that you should think the same thing, seeing as his opinion is better then yours (he actually says that in a few of his top ten reviews) The guy Doug Walker on the other hand is actually a nice and levelheaded fellow, at least he seems like so to me. When I saw his 'Rick Roll' video (titled Best Video Ever or something) he really came over as a guy who just wants to have fun at what he does, and I respect that. He may just whine and voice his opinion...but Kids take that word too seriously. It creates a new generation which only knowledge of some ol' good classics will be internet hate. :/ Seriously~ I know it's for the fun and all...but like Roger said, the line may be a bit blurry sometimes... And yes, Frob, everytime I saw a Schwarzy review from the NC, he really sounded like he hated the guy.. Maybe it's me, and I'm talking about vids a year ago perhaps, but it really sounded like he hated "that stupid german accent", that's what he said :/ So...much..hate.. Back in the day, we loved the guy! (Arnie) I still do! His movies are easily better than any modern blockbuster! (and his hate seems basically stuck around the fact he doesn't like/understand/accept Ahhh-nooold) Anyway, that's why I stopped watching the NC, around that time...
|
|
|
Post by frobman on Oct 26, 2010 9:31:30 GMT
Then you haven't seen his Arnie Month reviews from earlier this year? Well, I don't want to seem like the type of guy who goes on about "No, you're wrong! He's a saint!" but I just want to make things clear and all that.
As for the voice, I guess it's just fun to imitate. We all love to imitate his voice. (I know you do! *Shifty eyes*). Other wise, each to their own. No need to drag this out more than I have to. Otherwise, no deep hate in there as far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by rogerfromimp on Oct 26, 2010 9:50:28 GMT
I didn't get the impression that Doug really hates Arnold, no. Altough making fun of Arnold's accent is cheap. Every American or Englishman who makes fun of Arnie must speak one line of perfect German first. Kinda easy making fun of foreigners having an accent while you yourself only speak English.
I mostly hate it when Doug reviews parodies, like Surf ninja's. "Leslie Nieselen as the villain? Does that look threatening to you?!" No Doug, it doesn't. In fact, I have a hunch that's the entire point of hiring Leslie Nielsen in any role to begin with. You know, being the guy who's always the president or a high rank police luitenant despite his constant hilarious incompetence.
Ranting that a joke isn't funny, sure. That happens. But complaining that a joke doesn't make sense, despite it's obviously the point that the nonsense itself is the joke, is extremely lame. This is even more infuriating when you check Doug's Top 11 best comedies and praises several comedies for "It doesn't make sense, that's what makes it so funny!" Hypocrite much?
|
|
|
Post by Eyz on Oct 26, 2010 9:56:12 GMT
Imitating his own thing and bashing, which he does, is another! Roger got a point here ...We're all getting off topic here aren't we?
|
|
|
Post by hyrit on Oct 26, 2010 12:57:59 GMT
Good point Eyz, I see this has become a NC rant in stead of what I have made this post for ^^;
|
|
|
Post by Eyz on Oct 27, 2010 8:53:32 GMT
So, just instead, I'll ask, When will your new review be out? ~3 weeks or something, right? Any hints on the subject?
|
|