39,327
edits
Nostalgia Critic/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions
update links
m (update links) |
(update links) |
||
Line 38:
*** I'm guessing that without the Critic to give him money, Chester was forced to pull his life together and became a millionaire businessman.
** For that matter, why would Spoony be a non-gamer who reviews ''only family films?'' I know, I know, [[Rule of Funny]]--but at least the other Critic-Free lives made some sort of sense, given their respective character traits. Wouldn't it have been more logical for Spoony to become a combination of the Nostalgic Critic and the [[Happy Video Game Nerd]]? (At least this version of Spoony still seemed to be rather mentally unhinged....)
*** That bugged me, but for a different reason--supposedly, we were being shown a world without the Nostalgia Critic, not without Doug. Spoony can't be the Critic because then the world's got the Nostalgia Critic in it. In fact, if Spoony is the Critic, why is there no TGWTG.com? The same "[[YouTube]] being bitchy about copyrighted material" issue still would've come up, which would likely have resulted in the contributors we saw joining anyway.
*** The world is without the Nostalgia Critic ''as we know and recognize him'', not necessarily without a person or entity that at any point for whatever reason chose to name him-or-herself 'the Nostalgia Critic'; after all, if we applied that logic to the original movie, there could never have been anyone ever called "George Bailey". We're also viewing them as in-universe characters; maybe in-universe Spoony secretly desires to be the Nostalgia Critic and happily review family films, and the fact that he can't is what fuels his angry reviews of video games instead? As for why Spoony's not doing video games, he has done movie reviews from time to time, so it's not unheard of.
Line 67:
* How come when a character in a movie says a word or name in a weird way, Critic spends the rest of the review saying that same word/name in the same weird way? "Food" in Waterworld, "[[Dark Heart]]" in Care Bears, and "Devon" in Cop and a Half. Other than M. Bison, doesn't the Critic usually try to avoid repeating jokes nowadays? I mean, he doesn't say the word outside the review, but it's still the same joke though.
** Because it's a joke.
** Running gags within a video are different beasts from cross-video running gags.
* In his ''[[Mortal Kombat (film)|Mortal Kombat]]'' review, at one point he goes "[[Oh My Gods|Oh Shinnok!]] I mean, oh Jesus!" Yet in the rest of his reviews of the ''Mortal Kombat'' movies, he clearly shows ignorance of the series - he doesn't recognise Cyrax or Baraka, he doesn't catch the glaring contradictions in the plot, and he gets confused about the difference between the original Sub-Zero and his brother. If he knows about an obscure character in the series, why doesn't he know about other, more well-known characters and plot points?
Line 74:
* In the ''[[Quest for Camelot]]'' review he rags on the movie for never explaining how the various supernatural items/events/beings came about, shouting, "''Explain, movie! EXPLAIN!''" Yet at the end of the review he expresses a liking for ''[[Mary Poppins]]'', a movie whose supernatural elements are even ''more'' nonsensical.
** That could be in part due to the fact that ''[[Quest for Camelot]]'' takes place in the Camelot mythology, which already has established rules and such. Since ''[[Mary Poppins]]'' took place in its own universe instead of an already created one, it's less harmful. It's like the Camelot mythology is a series of books and ''[[Quest for Camelot]]'' is a bad fanfic. Whereas ''[[Mary Poppins]]'' is just one thing.
** We have a trope for this: [[Accentuate the Negative]].
* What's that song that plays during [[The Avengers]] review as they're walking in those giant floating hamster wheels like [[The Flaming Lips|Wayne Coyne]] or something? It's got to be from some seventies series, but which?
Line 85:
* In the first animated Titanic review he says that he'll need something more potent than the Jagermeister he's currently using. But he's not replacing the Jagermeister with a more potent liquor (working his way up to pure vodka, for example), he's just getting bigger and bigger bottles of Jagermeister. I get the fact that it's a great sight gag, but it's still not escalating "potentness".
** If the bottle's bigger, it can hold more Jagermeister. If he has more Jagermeister, he can get more drunk.
** Had he said he needs more booze, I would have no problem. But he said "potent", which is a measure of the ''strength'' of the liquor, ''not'' the quantity. Look up the definition yourself. [[The Other Wiki]] defines potency as a measure of strength, concentration, or the like. A larger bottle does not have stronger liquor, it's more of the ''same'' liquor.
** Guys, lighten up...RuleOf
* From his Aristocrats sketch, why would Richard Attenborough have to pull his pants down to get fucked if he had already been assraping the Doberman?
Line 94:
*** About half of the Critic's suffering ''is'' his own fault, he expects too much and then gets let down. Doug said that himself either in an interview or at a convention.
*** And then treating the subject as if it were legitimately bad just because he disappointed himself? ... Yeah I guess that does actually fit with the description he's given the character. After all, reviews aren't really the gospel. I guess I just couldn't shake the feeling that a part of Doug actually thought that certain cartoons suffered for not following reality.
*** It might also be something along the lines of what's often called called "Ebert's Law" (basically, it's not what it's about, it's how it's about it); after all, it's possible for even cartoon logic to be pushed too far past breaking point or to be inconsistent with it's own internal logic or rules (if it sets up a more-or-less 'realistic' universe and then has something over-the-top and zany happen, then it's shattering the show's internal logic). It's also probably to do with him being the ''Nostalgia'' Critic -- one of the things he skewers, at least in part, is nostalgia, looking back at things with rose-tinted glasses rather than as they really were. We might have watched these things as kids and thought everything held together perfectly, which thus colours our later memories of them, and thus how we react to material which is made after we're kids ("These modern cartoons make no sense at all, not like the ones I used to watch when I was a kid..."); what he's doing is peeling this away and showing that no, actually, in many cases they make ''no frickin' sense whatsoever''.
**** Just because something is a cartoon doesn't give the writers an excuse to be lazy. Half the time, the stuff he's pointing out isn't just cartoony type stuff, it's something central to the plot that is just completely ignored or not mentioned. Saying something is a cartoon, and so doesn't have to make sense, is a cop out, like saying something is "enchanted". Alright, fine. But A) You still have to be consistent. For a Tom and Jerry Movie, violating basic laws of physics and reality is fine, you expect it. But for Doug? I don't think so. It just doesn't fit with the tone of the show at all. And B) Bending the rules has to appear before the big climax, or it's just a Deus Ex Machina with a lazy explanation.
* After seeing his [[Sonic the Hedgehog]] and [[Felix the Cat: The Movie]] reviews, I have to ask: what's his beef with having a Prince/Princess as a ruler/head of state? Liechtenstein has one, and ''they're'' doing fine.
Line 104:
** It's also probably a play on the fact that Mayall's first name is spelt as 'Rik' rather than the more conventional 'Ri'''c'''k'. Rather than simply make fun of Mayall's first name, he instead played if as if they all had weird names, and the best way to do that through speech is to imply they're difficult to pronounce as well.
* After watching the [[
** Well, if you watch a more recent video of Phelous', he pretty much acts like that all the time. His style changed since he started.
Line 131:
* In his ''Top 11 Nostalgia Critic Fuck Us Part 3'' video, he acknowledges that he wasn't familiar with the [[Thomas the Tank Engine]] series before he did the movie and that he only did it upon request. Fair enough. He also said that he finds it more humorous to do a review "blind" (IE: Not knowing what you're getting yourself into) and that he does these reviews for fun/comedy. Again, fine. Buuuuut, then he compares it to his [[Star Trek]] movie reviews stating that though he didn't watch the series that much, he still was able to understand what was going on in the movies. Uh, Critic? How does that comparison work? You clearly know at least the basics of the [[Star Trek]] franchise (IE: Plot, characters, etc.) to understand what's going on in the movies. How does that compare to you not watching an episode of [[Thomas the Tank Engine]] or looking up the show on Wikipedia to get a basic understanding of the concept? It baffles me to no end.
** The Critic's knowledge of the [[Star Trek]] franchise probably comes from other people's reviews of the show (including those on [[SF Debris]]) and the occasional parody. As to why he hasn't read the Wikipedia page on [[Thomas the Tank Engine]], the Critic is just lazy.
*** And his point was more that even if you don't watch Star Trek, you can pretty much follow the movies just fine. Thomas the Tank Engine...not so much.
* This is more about Doug than the Critic (although those two are obviously related), but why ''does'' he apologize so much? The fuck-ups lists had subjective opinions being treated like mess ups, I've lost count of how many times he's groveled for the LP, you have Spoony's story on how Doug felt like crap because he had the idea of acting like the Snob first and he even felt guilty because the crew in ''[[Kickassia]]'' got sunburn. There's a difference between being a [[Nice Guy]] and having a [[Guilt Complex]].
Line 146:
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Web Original/Headscratchers]]
[[Category:Headscratchers]]
__NOTOC__
{{DEFAULTSORT:Nostalgia Critic, The/Headscratchers}}
[[Category:{{TOPLEVELPAGE}}]]
| |||