Dethroning Moment of Suck (Darth Wiki)/Web Original/That Guy With The Glasses: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Mass update links |
→[[The Nostalgia Critic]]: replaced: [[Lord of the Rings → [[The Lord of the Rings |
||
(17 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Darth Wiki}}
{{
[[File:criticeyes_5648.jpg|link=The Nostalgia Critic
With as many reviewers it has, it should come as no surprise [[That Guy With
▲With as many reviewers it has, it should come as no surprise [[That Guy With the Glasses]] has a few missteps in its history.
Keep in mind:
* Sign your entries
* One moment per reviewer to a troper, if multiple entries are signed to the same troper the more recent one will be cut.
* Moments only, no "just everything he said" entries.
* No contesting entries. This is subjective, the entry is their opinion.
* No natter. As above, anything contesting an entry will be cut, and anything that's just contributing more can be made its own entry.
* No ASSCAPS, no bold, and no italics unless it's the title of a work. We are not yelling the DMoSs out loud.
* Explain ''why'' it's a [[
== [[
*
*
*
*
*
*
== [[The Amazing Atheist|The Distressed Watcher]] ==
*
* Baronobeefdip: While I'm indifferent towards [[The Amazing Atheist|The Distressed Watcher]] and I do admit to find his videos to be [[Guilty Pleasures]], I did find one DMOS in one of his earlier "Trailer Failure" videos. Long story short, during his talk about the movie ''[[Legion]]'', he pretty much stops talking about the movie itself (IE: The actors, the plot, the effects, etc.) to rant about religion for five straight minutes just because Legion is a movie with a religious theme (IE: God sending angels to wipe out humanity). Look, I'm an Atheist myself, but I don't complain like a crazed loon whenever something contains any sort of religious reference. It's like someone complaining that there's robots in a [[Terminator]] movie. Just...really? ''Really''?
* Ipdf3. Speaking of the Distressed Watcher. I find that his material had been decreasing in quality but it didn't truly get bad until Lolita Covers. You'd expect DW to handle something as controversial as Lolita with his trademark anger and provocative analytic style, but no it's just a rather tepid "Hey look at these book covers. They're all different, isn't that mildly interesting?" It's just boring commentary about not very interesting things. Plus, his summary of Lolita made it sound like he'd never actually read the book but instead only read the first few lines off the back of the cover and then watched the movies. The book makes no attempt to condemn the actions of its protagonist? Maybe that's because the [[Unreliable Narrator|protagonist is also the narrator]], of course he's not going to condemn himself. The opening of the book even makes it clear that Humbert Humbert has addressed his novel to the "ladies and gentleman of the jury." This kind of sloppy research and new commenting rather than reviewing style really doesn't work for DW and I hope he goes back to his old style soon.
* stacey: His comment on how everyone who enjoyed [[Transformers (
*
*
*
*
* fluffything: His "History Of Vampires" had [[They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot|so much potential to inform viewers on how the vampire mythos has changed over the years throughout different forms of media]]. However, instead, the DW decides to just talk for several minutes on how "Vampires=Sex". It gets old and boring after a while. We get it, vampires are considered sexy. Now, tell us something else about the mythos, please.
== [[
*
* stacey: I hope this doesn't come off as too sensitive, but I was really bothered by her "autistic temper tantrum" joke in the Enchanted Christmas review. Like the Critic's, why was it needed? Even more bothersome was while people ''were'' angry with her, it was just swept under the rug and never mentioned again while Critic and his brother apologized eventually.
*
* bobdrantz: Her ''[[Disney]] VS [[
* Eegah: For me, it was the appearance of Douchey McNitpick in her review of ''[[The Fifth Element]]''. It's fine if Lindsay wanted to defend her use of the term [[MacGuffin]], but she really didn't need to paint all the complainers as a bunch of trolls for thinking Hitchcock was a better authority on the term than George Lucas (having, you know, invented it and all).
* nerdrager: I love the Chick, but holy shit was her review of ''[[The Last Unicorn (
* fluffything: While her ''Top 10 Songs About F*cking (In Musicals)'' was pretty bad to begin with, the real DMOS I had with it was when she talked about [[The Rocky Horror Picture Show]]. First of all, it starts off with [[Villain Song|"Sweet Transvestite"]], so you'd think that would be her #8 choice, right? Nope. Instead it switches halfway through to "Touch-a Touch-a Touch Me". Ok, then why bother having "Sweet Transvestite" playing for over half of the segment if that's not even the song of choice? Second, she barely covers her actual choice at all and pretty much just glances over it without going over the whole ''point'' of the song or it's importance to the storyline. And, finally, and worst of all, she calls the plot a "tragic tale about a child molester played by [[Tim Curry]]". No, just....dear sweet Riff Raff, no. Dr. Frank N. Furter is NOT a "child molester" by any stretch of the imagination. As a Rocky Horror fan, I'm thoroughly disgusted at this.
Line 50 ⟶ 46:
* stacey: I like Spoony, and I'm aware that he doesn't always equal Noah, but he can come up with pretty sexist stuff sometimes. Like saying "If you actually liked [[Final Fantasy VIII|Eyes on Me]], you are officially a complete pussy. No-no, if you were even able to sit through Eyes on Me, you are a pussy. You see this? These are your man-cards. And these are your man-cards, listening to Eyes on Me. You're a pussy! And that's not a slam against women. You're a pussy! There's a difference! Women have more balls than you." ...that's a weird way of honoring females, there.
* ignuszwei: His Tron Legacy review is probably his worst video yet: He makes it very clear that he didn't pay attention to the fairly simple plot, couldn't come up with any good explanation for plot holes, doesn't even try to be funny with his ranting raving and facepalming, and preempts any counter-argument by implying that anyone who disagrees with him is a rabid, idiotic fanboy. The majority of the feedback he got proved him wrong: everyone that liked the movie agreed that it wasn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but they still enjoyed the movie nonetheless. The tone throughout the video makes it clear that isn't Spoony hilariously ranting for our amusement: this is Noah Antwiller himself trolling everyone and being a dick.
*
*
* [[Blue Rose 12400]]: His rant on [[Final Fantasy XIV]]. Basically, he was ranting about the tutorial demo and how it affects the rest of the game. I'm sorry, but if all games sucked based on the tutorial, then [[Kingdom Hearts II]] should have flopped.
* fluffything: His written review of ''[[Akira]]'' is a big DMOS for me mostly due to the blatant [[Bias Steamroller]] and research goofs. First of all, he spends over half of the review making fun of the Anime fandom (Say, Spoony, what was that you said about how you hated that Roger Ebert was making fun of video game fans? Hypocrisy much?) and "joking" (in the loosest sense of the word possible) about how "(insert Japanese word here) means (insert "Anime Sux LOL" comment here)". Second, he claims that he didn't bother to read the original Manga to understand what's going on because it's "too long" and complains that the movie was too confusing. Spoony, you do realize you could've just looked up the movie on the internet and gotten useful footnotes on the plot and characters, right? Third, speaking of plot, he overlooks important plot elements (Like that Akira was a human being whose psychic powers went out of control destroying Tokyo in the first place) in favor of a poorly-written summary that sounds like what would happen if one were to watch an episode of [[Dragonball Z]] on fast-forward. If he didn't like the movie, fine. He's entitled to his opinion. But, would it kill him to actually put some effort into his review instead of complaining about something he could've easily learned more about by doing five minutes of research on Wikipedia?
== [[Atop the Fourth Wall]] ==
*
*
*
*
* bobdrantz: His review of ''Atari Force #1''. The main reason is that he decided to do it live. Look, Linkara, I'm sure you thought you were doing
* [[User:So We Ate Them]]: "[[Silent Hill]]: Dying Inside #1-2" Three little words: "Special Needs monster." Linkara makes a point out of being one of the site's most tactful members. So why did he think that making a joke [[
* fluffything: I like [[AT 4 W]], but his recent review of ''NBC Comics'' just didn't feel quite right compared to his other works. Sure, it was funny, but, there was one aspect of it that really bothered me. Mainly that his biggest complaint was that the comics were all "to be continued..." stories in which the reader would have to watch the respective shows the comics were based on to find out what happens next. To me, this is just an example of laziness on Linkara's part. Why? Because "to be continued" storylines are actually pretty common in fiction. Heck, there are even entire FRANCHISES based on various parts of the story being told in multiple media to get a full understanding of what's going on. Plus, um, Linkara reviews comics, right? [[Did Not Do the Research|Did he forget that there are SEVERAL comic arcs that end in "to be continued" and that they don't have any resolution until the next chapter?]]
== [[Todd in
* bobdrantz: Normally, I like [[Todd in
* [[Mosquito Man]]: I took Todd's perspective on the songs in a different light than the above, but there's a part where Todd shows a picture of a guy with weird hair and says he needs to die. Todd considers that man a mistake on the part of God, and an example of one of the "mistakes God makes all the time". Given how Todd acts in the commentaries, it was probably all meant as a joke, but I found it DMOS-worthy to say what amounts to, "[[Dude, Not Funny|God makes mistakes all the time, like this guy here, this guy needs to die]]".
* fluffything: I happen to be a fan of [[Todd in
* Mimimurlough: His treatment of [[Lady Gaga]]'s Alejandro was bad, but to date nothing can really top the double standard he put on Born this way. After years of reviewing artists who rubs their very (and sometimes aggressively) heterosexual desires in our faces, he looks at what is possibly the first mainstream song that is dedicated to LGBT people and calls it pandering? Apparently not even members of the community can acknowlege that it even exists in their works without getting berated for it.
== [[The Angry Joe Show|Angry Joe]] ==
*
*
== [[Marz Gurl]] ==
Line 79 ⟶ 75:
== Others ==
*
*
*
*
* fluffything: While ''[[Suburban Knights]]'' has been pretty middle-ground in terms of entertaiment (Some parts are genuinely funny where as others are, well, not), I find the scene with the mother complaining her kid can't play on the playground while Spoony's team is battling to be one of the most poorly-written scenes in the special so far. The woman playing the mother is a terrible actress, the gag feels forced and unfunny, and there's really no reason for it to happen other than for some poorly-written gag to occur. Also, the girl playing the woman's daughter is a horrible actress. She just keeps smiling and giggling for no reason at all and it's very distracting.
* fluffything: Normally, I like [[Bennett the Sage]]'s ''Anime Abandon'' series and it's interesting to see his views on hilariously bad Anime from the late 80s-early 90s. But, I just pretty much said "[[Precision F-Strike|Fuck it]]" after the first few minutes of this [[Vampire Wars]] review. Why, you may ask? Because of his "I hate vampires" rant. Now, it's not the fact that he doesn't like vampires that bothers me. What I found to be a DMOS was his reasoning for hating the vampires. It pretty much boiled down to "because I don't like the fandom" and "vampires are popular", and then he acts all smug and hip stating how he was hating vampires before it was "cool to like vampires". Again, apart from bashing the fandom, he gives no other reason to hate vampire fiction. Look, if you don't like something, fine. But, for Alucard's sake, give a more legitimate reason to dislike vampires (IE: The mythos, the various media portrayals, etc.) themselves rather than just whine about the fandom.
*
* fluffything: Normally, I like ''[[What
* [[User:So We Ate Them]]: [[Phelous]]' review of [[A Serbian Film]]. It's essentially ten straight minutes of him saying the film sucks and is disgusting. He admitted that he'd done little to no preparation for the review, (justifying it in that the film sucks) and that he was resorting to overused jokes. He obviously did little to no research beyond a wikipedia page he waved at the camera just to convince us he did research, nor did he take any notes over the course of the one time he watched the movie, as nobody (not even the director) besides Milos is referred to even once as something other than a [[Fail O'Suckyname]] variant of "sick fuck." Look. I know [[A Serbian Film]] is one of the greatest tests of wills this side of [[Rectified Anonymity]], But for Pete's sake, If you're going to do a gag review, do a gag review, and if you're going to do a proper review, carry out the usual procedures, take the notes, and for the love of God, don't half-ass it, regardless of your opinion on the film.
{{tropesub-subpagefooter}}
|