DVDizzy Forum

<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/gbk7g4uvSgI.x?p=1" width="720" height="433" frameborder="0"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#gbk7g4uvSgI"></embed>

I know a lot of you guys love Doug (and in other cases some fanboys worship his words like the gospel), but having just watched his review of WALL-E, I finally get what his issue is: he does a lot of nitpicking and very little reviewing and criticism.

When I say nitpicking, I mean that at times he just seems to go "Oh but I didn't like this, this was decent etc.". To give an example of what I am saying, Lindsay Ellis, aka the Nostalgia Chick, mentioned WALL-E in two videos (as in, she didn't review the movie just mentioned it), in her favorite movies list and in her review of The Lorax. And even though in both cases the movie is mentioned for a brief period of time, she analyzes it WAY better than in the 2 to 3 minutes Doug was given.

For example, she said that she felt the environmental message in Lorax was weak because it forced the message onto the audience and made it JUST the focus, whereas in WALL-E, the main reason to get the plant back wasn't just to save humanity, but to save WALL-E. That's something I never thought of before.

I should state that Lindsay is more of an essay type reviewer so I find her output at times fascinating (though at times she does get A LOT of misinformation and she does have the obnoxious side characters that force humor into the analysis), so I tend to prefer that over Doug's. Still, though, last year when he got to the end of the month he was very tired and the commentary started to grow thin and at times it was a re-tread of what he had said in earlier videos. So I think I won't bother this year.

I know a lot of you guys like him and look forward to his commentary, but I think once was enough for me.

pap64 wrote:When I say nitpicking, I mean that at times he just seems to go "Oh but I didn't like this, this was decent etc.". To give an example of what I am saying, Lindsay Ellis, aka the Nostalgia Chick, mentioned WALL-E in two videos (as in, she didn't review the movie just mentioned it), in her favorite movies list and in her review of The Lorax. And even though in both cases the movie is mentioned for a brief period of time, she analyzes it WAY better than in the 2 to 3 minutes Doug was given.

Very true. And obviously Lindsay actually studied film. A lot of people think anyone can review films these days because all it takes is your opinion. This is false, because expressing your opinion on what you did or didn't like about a film is not a review.

Doug was great as The Nostalgia Critic, because he was basically ripping apart stuff that never made sense to begin with. But as an actual critic he's completely lost. He's constantly repeating himself with empty phrases: "actually pretty good" and "nahheehhhh I don't knooow".

A critic must possess some basic analysis skills and Doug doesn't have them.

But thanks to the internet, anyone's a critic these days. I only watch Nostalgia Chick videos on that site these days.

Out of interest, what exactly did he say about WALL-E?

pap64 wrote:I know a lot of you guys love Doug (and in other cases some fanboys worship his words like the gospel), but having just watched his review of WALL-E, I finally get what his issue is: he does a lot of nitpicking and very little reviewing and criticism.

When I say nitpicking, I mean that at times he just seems to go "Oh but I didn't like this, this was decent etc.". To give an example of what I am saying, Lindsay Ellis, aka the Nostalgia Chick, mentioned WALL-E in two videos (as in, she didn't review the movie just mentioned it), in her favorite movies list and in her review of The Lorax. And even though in both cases the movie is mentioned for a brief period of time, she analyzes it WAY better than in the 2 to 3 minutes Doug was given.

For example, she said that she felt the environmental message in Lorax was weak because it forced the message onto the audience and made it JUST the focus, whereas in WALL-E, the main reason to get the plant back wasn't just to save humanity, but to save WALL-E. That's something I never thought of before.

I should state that Lindsay is more of an essay type reviewer so I find her output at times fascinating (though at times she does get A LOT of misinformation and she does have the obnoxious side characters that force humor into the analysis), so I tend to prefer that over Doug's. Still, though, last year when he got to the end of the month he was very tired and the commentary started to grow thin and at times it was a re-tread of what he had said in earlier videos. So I think I won't bother this year.

I know a lot of you guys like him and look forward to his commentary, but I think once was enough for me.

I couldn't said it better myself. Doug is not really good at conveying his opinion in a nuanced manner. Yes, his videos are supposed to be for entertaining, but the way he's conveying sentences are just the way a teen would've done it and the guy is 31! And his so-called statements aren't always coherent.

And again, Monster Madness by James Rolfe beats out Disneycember as James has a clear passion for the material and knows it well, offers some nice insight into the movies he reviews, and you actually learn something from it.

Doug can't really analyze the Disney movies all that well and he's terrible at research and that's part of why Disneycember is very disappointing.

Also I don't think he researched enough into the real Patch Adams. He says laughter isn't medicine, which is totally untrue.

I hope I'm not beating a dead horse to the ground, but I'm still kind of annoyed by his James and the Giant Peach review. He says at the end that he acknowledges that there were changes to the book and yet he expresses shock at the rhino eating the parents just a minute into the movie, complains about the weirdness of some of the scenes, and puts the full blame on Randy Newman for the "Eating the Peach" song. And what about Hook? Yes. It does seem weird that as a baby Peter would understand what his mother was talking about. But they put that in there because that is how it happened in the original story. And this is the same guy who gave Rob Reiner a hard time about not doing research on Eskimos for North.

And here's something I noticed in The Hunchback of Notre Dame review: "Esmerelda says they're not really all thieves." Um...No. She didn't say that. She said that they're not really evil.

I do think Doug is funny and it is enjoyable hearing his opinions on these movies but jeez! Why doesn't he look into some of these things so that his opinions come off as more valid?

PatrickvD wrote:

pap64 wrote:When I say nitpicking, I mean that at times he just seems to go "Oh but I didn't like this, this was decent etc.". To give an example of what I am saying, Lindsay Ellis, aka the Nostalgia Chick, mentioned WALL-E in two videos (as in, she didn't review the movie just mentioned it), in her favorite movies list and in her review of The Lorax. And even though in both cases the movie is mentioned for a brief period of time, she analyzes it WAY better than in the 2 to 3 minutes Doug was given.

Very true. And obviously Lindsay actually studied film. A lot of people think anyone can review films these days because all it takes is your opinion. This is false, because expressing your opinion on what you did or didn't like about a film is not a review.

Doug was great as The Nostalgia Critic, because he was basically ripping apart stuff that never made sense to begin with. But as an actual critic he's completely lost. He's constantly repeating himself with empty phrases: "actually pretty good" and "nahheehhhh I don't knooow".

A critic must possess some basic analysis skills and Doug doesn't have them.

But thanks to the internet, anyone's a critic these days. I only watch Nostalgia Chick videos on that site these days.

I agree about the whole "everyone's a critic" statement. I was talking to a friend of mine about it and he said that now thanks to the internet, people have lost the respect they had towards film criticism because it gave the illusion that everyone could do it, even though in reality there is more to film criticism that just saying something is good or bad.

This is something I learned when I used to write reviews for Nintendo World Review. Even though I was a volunteer staff writer doing this for free save for games and the experience, I was treated like a professional in that regard. That meant that if a review was not working I was forced to rewrite it several times till it made sense. For anyone else it would be torture, but for me it was enlightening because I learned to convey ideas in a deeper manner than just "this I liked, this I hated". You have to convey to the reader WHY something works or doesn't, get them to understand why it matters and why should they either avoid it or give it a chance. This means explaining stuff that you wouldn't normally explain to people at any given situation.

For example, whenever I talk about Wreck-It Ralph, I say that the movie is worth of someone's time because it is a film that dares to present new ideas to the Disney medium and may present something fresher to anyone that thinks that Disney is just princesses and fairy tales, and then explain in detail why. I suspect that Doug would say "eeeh this I liked, this I didn't like I don't know" if he were to review Wreck-It Ralph, which would honestly annoy me because the movie deserves better analysis.

When Lindsay reviewed The Lorax, I honestly thought he was being too uptight and too "AAAUGH NEW MOVIES SUCKS WAH WAH WAH". But then when I actually saw the movie I understood what she was saying perfectly: she stated that the Lorax was a weaker Seuss story to begin with, and that it was necessary to pad it because it would barely make an one hour movie. However the problem was that the padding completely misses the point about the message of the story and being spastic about it. Hence why she brought WALL-E up because both movies had the same message, but WALL-E did it better because it did not make the message the focus, it focuses on the characters and their struggles. She contrasted the stories and found strengths and weaknesses in both and I felt like I had learned something in the end.

Doug's reviews? I just feel like I am hearing the audio version of the reviews people write on Rotten Tomatoes, Amazon, Tumblr and such, and it just doesn't feed my passion for film analysis, especially the analysis of Disney films which I ADORE (even if it gives me far too many headaches in the process).

A friend of mine last year stated to me that he was tired of hearing Doug say over and over that "X movie was cute but blaaah", and I agree. If he wants to take this seriously, he needs to stop pandering to his audience and offer better insight than just what he thinks.

<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/gbk7g4vOEgI.x?p=1" width="720" height="433" frameborder="0"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://blip.tv/api.swf#gbk7g4vOEgI"></embed>

I rather enjoyed his review of UP.

Toy Story 3 Review:

<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/gbk7g4vVfQI.x?p=1" width="720" height="433" frameborder="0"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://blip.tv/api.swf#gbk7g4vVfQI"></embed>

Although I hate to admit it, Doug does have a good point about "Toy Story 3"; Andy seems too attached to his toys for a teen.

Btw, Doug has already posted a review for "Cars 2" in the "Guy with the Glasses" pages.

DisneyFan09 wrote:Although I hate to admit it, Doug does have a good point about "Toy Story 3"; Andy seems too attached to his toys for a teen.

Btw, Doug has already posted a review for "Cars 2" in the "Guy with the Glasses" pages.

Nope not yet. I imagine that Will either be tomorrow or Monday.

disneyboy20022 wrote: Nope not yet. I imagine that Will either be tomorrow or Monday.

It is already out; http://blip.tv/nostalgiacritic/disneyce ... -2-6483558

DisneyFan09 wrote:

pap64 wrote:I know a lot of you guys love Doug (and in other cases some fanboys worship his words like the gospel), but having just watched his review of WALL-E, I finally get what his issue is: he does a lot of nitpicking and very little reviewing and criticism.

When I say nitpicking, I mean that at times he just seems to go "Oh but I didn't like this, this was decent etc.". To give an example of what I am saying, Lindsay Ellis, aka the Nostalgia Chick, mentioned WALL-E in two videos (as in, she didn't review the movie just mentioned it), in her favorite movies list and in her review of The Lorax. And even thoufgh in both cases the movie is mentioned for a brief period of time, she analyzes it WAY better than in the 2 to 3 minutes Doug was given.

For example, she said that she felt the environmental message in Lorax was weak because it forced the message onto the audience and made it JUST the focus, whereas in WALL-E, the main reason to get the plant back wasn't just to save humanity, but to save WALL-E. That's something I never thought of before.

I should state that Lindsay is more of an essay type reviewer so I find her output at times fascinating (though at times she does get A LOT of misinformation and she does have the obnoxious side characters that force humor into the analysis), so I tend to prefer that over Doug's. Still, though, last year when he got to the end of the month he was very tired and the commentary started to grow thin and at times it was a re-tread of what he had said in earlier videos. So I think I won't bother this year.

I know a lot of you guys like him and look forward to his commentary, but I think once was enough for me.

I couldn't said it better myself. Doug is not really good at conveying his opinion in a nuanced manner. Yes, his videos are supposed to be for entertaining, but the way he's conveying sentences are just the way a teen would've done it and the guy is 31! And his so-called statements aren't always coherent.

i know for a fact not even every teen does it that way

ajmrowland wrote: i know for a fact not even every teen does it that way

I wasn't saying that every teen are conveying their sentences that way. I meant that Doug was doing it as a teen would do it. Get it?

I'm thinking this isn't Disneycember as much as it is Pixarcember

DisneyFan09 wrote:Although I hate to admit it, Doug does have a good point about "Toy Story 3"; Andy seems too attached to his toys for a teen.

While I am of the camp that thinks that Toy Story 3 is very melodramatic, I think Doug fails to see the point in it (which is another problem he has as a critic: he tends to focus on his own issues and nitpicks instead of having more of an interpretive mind and analyze elements better).

From the very first movie, we see one thing missing in Andy's life: a father. Oh sure the mother was sweet and he was a loving brother, but likely there is an element of sadness in his life that he tries to overshadow with his toys and imagination. We all do that at one point in our lives: we focus on the things that brings us joy and reminds us of a better time.

The point of Toy Story 3 is to learn to let go of that if you hope to become a better person today. Andy begins to realize how much the toys matter to him and how they shaped him as a person, hence why he plays with them one more time before he gives them to Bonnie. This is why it moved people so deeply, it was a representation of us letting go of our childhood whims and face the world as adults.

pap64 wrote:

DisneyFan09 wrote:Although I hate to admit it, Doug does have a good point about "Toy Story 3"; Andy seems too attached to his toys for a teen.

While I am of the camp that thinks that Toy Story 3 is very melodramatic, I think Doug fails to see the point in it (which is another problem he has as a critic: he tends to focus on his own issues and nitpicks instead of having more of an interpretive mind and analyze elements better).

From the very first movie, we see one thing missing in Andy's life: a father. Oh sure the mother was sweet and he was a loving brother, but likely there is an element of sadness in his life that he tries to overshadow with his toys and imagination. We all do that at one point in our lives: we focus on the things that brings us joy and reminds us of a better time.

The point of Toy Story 3 is to learn to let go of that if you hope to become a better person today. Andy begins to realize how much the toys matter to him and how they shaped him as a person, hence why he plays with them one more time before he gives them to Bonnie. This is why it moved people so deeply, it was a representation of us letting go of our childhood whims and face the world as adults.

That is an interesting interpretation about Andy but I never saw it this way. The focus of the series lies wholly on the toys, Andy only functions as a plot device and is important due to his relation with the toys, not for any aspects of his actual character.

I would disagree that children of single parents are fundamentally less happy or have something missing in their lives. At least in Toy Story 1 and 2, Andy is portrayed as a generally happy kid who likes playing with his toys, don't think there is anything deeper behind it and nothing in the movies themselves seem to support that analysis. No mention is made of Andy being affected by his father's absence, perhaps this is subtlety, but I personally think it was because there was nothing there.

The ending of Toy Story 3 may well have been meant to convey the message of letting go of our childhood but I feel it was poorly set-up. As mentioned earlier, the entire series focuses on the toys and the lessons they learn, to shift the focus to Andy's when he doesn't have much of a character and has at most, 30 minutes of screen time in the whole series makes the moment feel rather unearned. It's not as if that scene was the culmination of character development or conflict on Andy's part. Certainly not throughout the whole series and not even the third movie on it's own with the majority of screentime being devoted to the toys and their escape from Sunnyside.

pap64 wrote:
While I am of the camp that thinks that Toy Story 3 is very melodramatic, I think Doug fails to see the point in it (which is another problem he has as a critic: he tends to focus on his own issues and nitpicks instead of having more of an interpretive mind and analyze elements better).

From the very first movie, we see one thing missing in Andy's life: a father. Oh sure the mother was sweet and he was a loving brother, but likely there is an element of sadness in his life that he tries to overshadow with his toys and imagination. We all do that at one point in our lives: we focus on the things that brings us joy and reminds us of a better time.

The point of Toy Story 3 is to learn to let go of that if you hope to become a better person today. Andy begins to realize how much the toys matter to him and how they shaped him as a person, hence why he plays with them one more time before he gives them to Bonnie. This is why it moved people so deeply, it was a representation of us letting go of our childhood whims and face the world as adults.

Interesting observation. You have a good point.