What does Cinemaphile think of YouTube essays?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
What does?
What does Cinemaphile think of YouTube essays?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
I don't care about the opinions of non-cartoonists on the making of cartoons.
good, now you understand why nobody listens to you seriously
t. seething youtuber
nobody was talking to you, moron
The most zero imagination comeback imaginable, proving my point all by itself, and you give me an opportunity to remind people that drawing cartoons is what makes you a cartoonist, not validation from an industry full of bitter maniacs who can't accept that they never should have entered animation
>Manchild speaks out of his rottenness
uh - UGH!
Oh, hello there!. No, don't mind me, I'm just... ugh - AGHH!!
*SCHLOP*
Goodness, that was a big one, wasn't it! No, don't start cleaning it up yet, I haven't finished! Let's see... hnnhh... hnnnAAHHH!!!
*SCHLOP*
Oooh, that does feel good! I tell ya, there's no greater pleasure than taking a FAT SHIT! Don't worry, I'll be done in a few minutes, then you can get on your hands and knees and scrape it up for me!
*SPHLLHHHHH* *BRAAAAP*
Oh boy it sure is stinky
Ooh, a little gassy today, aren't we! I... oh, my, I... ughhhhHHH!!!!!
*BRAAAP* *SCHLOP*
Another fine sample, wouldn't you say? Go on, don't be shy, have a good SNIIFFF. Smell anything? That's right, I've been eating plenty of greens and fibre, just for you! And... what's that? Why, I do believe it's a piece of sweetcorn? Let me point it out for you...
...There we are. Goodness, I've never seen you so eager. Why, there's a large chunk of it underneath your worn, unclipped fingernails!
*SCHLURRP*
*SCHLOP*
If you think shit offends me you truly don't know anything about this website.
It will grow up with the audience by having the toys partially survive a nuke.
DAVID SPADE AS A LLAMA!!?? REALLY!!??
?
exactly
Broke
>Toy Story 4 destroyed the saga
Woke
>Toy Story 3 destroyed the saga
Not making Woody evil destroyed the saga
Ik this is probably bait but Toy Story 3 was probably the best ending the franchise could've received. At least it actually addressed what would happen once andy grew to old for the toys.
Toy Story 3 was just a retread of Toy Story 2. Yeah it gave closure, but the plot beats are near identical.
How are they similar? It does enough to differentiate itself from 2 without being a carbon copy imo and it still succeeded at giving closure while still being mostly fun and engaging throughout its runtime with some great moments like the "Incinerator Scene", which to this day was one of the most impactful scenes from any of the Toy Story movies. In general a lot of the emotional beats felt tighter than 2 and even 1.
>Other than Andy passing down the toys it didn't do anything new
I get that all the toy story movies beforehand were pretty much "prison escape" films in a sense, but I felt like 3 played up the concept to really engaging degree.
>How are they similar?
>The toys are in a situation where they believe they are unwanted (garage sale, attic)
>End up in a completely new environment (Al Mcwhiggen's apartment, Daycare)
>Toys meet friendly elderly toy who is fat and has a cane(Stinky Pete, Lotso)
>New environment actual sucks and the toys want to leave
>Elderly toy won't let them leave
>elderly toy's motivation is that they felt unloved and unappreciated in their old environments
>Buzz Lightyear is a mini antagonist (Store Buzz, Spanish Buzz)
>Climax is in a massive industrial area (airport luggage conveyer belts, landfill)
>Antagonist loses and gets stuck with an owner who doesn't appreciate them (little girl, garbage man)
I'm not saying that Toy Story 3 is a bad movie, that incinerator scene alone is really good. It's just that from a story perspective, both movies hit the same beats.
Other than Andy passing down the toys it didn't do anything new. And that makes for a 5 minute short, not a full length movie.
It's not the best film everyone touts it to be, and I can see some slipping in the writing. That said, I thought it was a good/10 end. Not my favorite of the 4, but I consider it good.
this gay is so autistic. i listened to this a long while ago and I truly did wonder why people liked 4. Finally someone that goes into enough autistic detail. He structures it well enough since so many gays who make 30min to 1+ hour videos don't know what pacing is or how not to repeat themselves or how not to make a point/organize thoughts.
There's being autistic enough to go into every detail, and there's being so moronic you can't condense your thoughts in a concise and effective manner. I think this guy is the former autistic example. He's just a ranting autist who hates this film as people rightfully should.
You'd have a good point regarding OPs posts...
If the kid didn't have an aneurism because his autistic brain couldn't comprehend why his friend didn't hate the movie as much as he did.
?si=QTmeTJe-Q3FfpK7z
Whatever it was, it for sure was the end of Pixar's golden age, this cemented by the fact of what came next...
TS 3 and on didn't need to exist as they both ignore the ending of two where it's stated Andy's sister would inherit all the toys
I don't even see what people liked about 3.
It had a fun prison escape narrative, tight emotional beats, addressed a long standing question of what would happen once Andy grew too old for the toys, and was a decent send off for the characters (before 4 and probably 5 came and ruined it).
5 isnt even here yet
hence PROBABLY. You don't think they're just gonna leave that money on the table. They might not call it 5 because that seems a bit getting on but we will see a new Toy Story.
No it isn't.
Toy Story 3 was fine as a conclusion for the franchise.
good to throw in the background while you're doing something else but none of them should ever go past like an hour or an hour and a half, if you do you're just bad at explaining yourself and there's lots of redundancy.
Holy ADD, Batman!
Cinemaphile isn't one person, and 99% of video "essays" are dogshit made for clicks, and another .5% are just terrible arguments by ass-pies.
I love listening to autists vent about cartoons/movies/vidya for multiple hours on end. I'm completely serious
Making threads about those autists should be punishable by death however
using the same clips over and over again when making your point becomes repetitive, and the longer that video is tje more annoying those clips become
There was like a 6 hour Doctor Who essay that repeated the same clips ad nauseum. I want to know who started that trend and how I can get away with punching them in the face.
The "long video" part probably originates from Let's Play since a lot of long Video Game "Longfrom Analysis"/"Essays" are basically Let's plays with bells and whistles (and editing) and always pushing forward and as such gets new visuals to play with, the issue is when aiming for that length to shit that doesn't have enough material to hit such a run time and keep visuals varied, which can be very hard to do if you are specifically selling a agenda with your video to start with (which means you want visuals relevant to that agenda as much a possible)
Let's take the infamous seven hour Omega Ruby video for example, it's basically a Let's Play and 6 hours for a Pokémon Let's Play really isn't that bad if you consider how many are playlists that total much higher times, the focus it gets is just people seeing the length and going "what the frick?"
I mean, i would expect Dr. Who would have enough material to keep visuals varied for six hours considering the age and obsession gays have over it, but i guess not.
As for why people aim for that length, Algorithm, some justify themselves without it an are basically why the Algorithm started favoring it, others started after the Algorithm bias became known and just make it to make use of it. I think the current Algorithm is back to "10 second -10 minute videos from channels that barely upload" right now though so expect that trend to die off aside from the channels that alredy build audiences, because oh boy my home page is flooded with Sub-1 minute clips from nobodies that could just been shorts now in spite of me specifically favoring shit that is 30 minutes or more.
Tldr can you put it in a 2 hour video essay for me so i can pay attention to it
Yea I remember in this video he kept bringing up something and would use the same clips every time and it genuinely gave me a headache.
The worse ones are when they insert long awkward pauses in between and stare soullessly at you.
I mean, in the case of Ace Attorney the sprites (later models) animation is specifically bombastic and/or silly because they need to keep the visuals entertaining when the subject matter easily gets drawn out and they are a reward for the player progressing the plot (Read: Breaking down the witnesses more and more), i don't think it is quite the same thing all-in-all.
I watched the entire video so here's a synopsis: he doesn't like toy story 4.
I throw them on in the background since I do Night Custodial work. I want to keep music to a minimum 1-2 hours so I don't get tired of songs. Helps past the time and keeps me company since I treat it like a podcast and keep my screen locked.
Nobody liked writing essays. No teacher likes writing essays. Why do these nerds think this is the medium to express themselves?
I did. Essays are easy to write, especially in college when I was allowed to write about shit I actually liked.
nobody likes writing essays about shit they don't care about.
Good to put it on the background, but boring shit if it's more than an hour. Specially if it's just a single movie being reviewed. You only need max half an hour for that dumbass.
he's right about the movie but he sounds too whiny and angry and the video is WAY too long
I imagine he's severely autistic.
That's not true. There's a lot of black dudes that do video essays about anime and cartoons, too.
I wouldn't call those essays, just rants.
This. CosmonautVarietyhomie is one of these morons who make hour long videos.
hehe yo mama drama
Extremely variable quality depending on both creator and subject and generally ones that start with their stated conclusion are pretty dull because the bias will permeate through the whole thing and often have the "I have been negative so let's bring bring up the good things, whoops the good things are actually BAD THINGS" bit that is really not as clever as the users of it think and usually being pretty glorified hitpieces or are just masturbatory without acknowledging any flaws of the work at all. More neutral titles tend to usually have a cooler head making them in my experience. Tone of voice is also important, if something is like 5 minutes, sure sound perpetually Angry/Butthurt, but that shit grates if it is non-stop for a hour (or more). But sometime the occasional Hot-Take title like "I don't think people praising this actually watched/read/played it" or something like that can prove itself, but it is not as easy to pull of that kind of argument well as people think if you start off with the conclusion instead of the lead-up.
They really do also depend on how much research is put in or if it is just "i read the wikipedia article out loud". Generally though i would say the Video Game ones beat out Cartoon ones in overall quality and i think barely anyone makes Comic ones because Comics are fricking dying, Live-Action TV ones tend to fall a bit between them. Video Games tend to be the best subject of them due having more objective factors like performance and generally being more "dissect-able" by showing raw programming data allowing more approaches on top of ones like animation/graphics and story. But all sorts of shit can make for a good essay because on good enough is basically a documentary. Like the Defunctland one on Lines, weird and obscure but interesting and not the sort of thing you can just look up on Wikipedia.
Essays that are "refutations" of other popular Essays are basically never worth the time.
They help me get through my boring workday
This thing is not really an essay but a critique ie an autistic rant. I had to do that shit in high school and collage. Toy Story 4 is a low hanging fruit that's an easy punching bag but I'm glad there's someone out there dunking on oscars and shitty movies.
this guy is pure autism
i tried to watch his Incredibles 2 review and he manages to miss things that even a child would get it
at 22:50
he's such an moron he didn't get Jack Jack was fighting the raccoon. How moronic are you? I had to stop there, as if his voice wasn't enough
*why Jack Jack was fighting the raccoon
yea dude has something wrong with him. I occasionally watch him. He had a rant becuase that car series had ghosts in it. Like he legitimate was angry because the worldbuilding of Cars was ruined.
He's like early 2000s Mr. Enter for the long video essay era. Severe autism and can't change his voice from comical anger to legitimate anger.
I can't watch it because I get tired of seeing Helen and Violet's asses and I WANT TO LOOK AT HELEN AND VIOLET BRAP ART! I HATE INCREDIBLES! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! FART NOW! FAAAAART! BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP
Anything over 30 minutes surely is just a "complete" video review of every scene in addition to being full of irrelevant information.
Honestly I think most fall out of "fair use" by including virtually the entire work in their review.
Only gays who post them here are their creators who want them shilled.
It's a medium that fundamentally has nothing to say because it only exists to pad time and play the Youtube algorithm.
I don't need an essay to tell me that. It's obvious.
It's all algorithmic bullshit. You watch a retrospective on something and its like 3 hours. So is it going to be extremely in depth like a passion project? No it's just shit that could be condensed into 20 minutes at most. Gotta get that ad money I guess.
A lot of it is clickbait.
The only good Cinemaphile related video essayist is TheRealJims, and even then I'd avoid his Pixar stuff unless you're really bored.
>This looks like a interesting vi...
On average his videos are at least 20 minutes long. Even videos on zombie Simpson crap is interesting.
Ypipo really do be thinkin their opinion matters
Good for sleeping to
They can very easily be cringe. There are many pitfalls these people can fall into such as taking themselves too seriously, trying too hard to say something "meaningful" or emotional, taking too long to get to the point because they think longer = better, overproducing and overediting, etc. But they can be good if the person behind it actually has good points to make and understands they're just making a youtube video and not a feature film.
I saw this movie way after the fact without knowing much about it and it was honestly a lot worse than I thought it was going to be. What they did to my boy Buzz was unforgivable and the Keanu Reaves character felt really dated and forced.
But how the frick do you talk about that for
SIX
HOURS
Autism, the unironic kind. Being able to talk for a long ass time about some niche interest only they may be into is an autism thing.
He breaks down every single scene with Cinemasins tier complaints.
I swear TVtropes and Cinemasins have been the biggest cancer to pop culture. Now we got every moron pointing out every innocuous detail in an attempt at a GOTCHA to try and prove they have one up on whatever it is they're looking at. They're so busy trying to prove how savvy they are they can't even pay attention, ignore context and don't understand the medium. They expect characters to act with the same meta knowledge they have as viewers.
I think most human beings are sheep and will blindly trust whatever a funny YouTube man says.
Six FRICKING hours?! How? How is there even 1/6th of that to say about this? There's no reason you can't get this done in under a half our.
i click "not interested" on every gay ass surface level analysis video youtube recommends me
It's nice to have white-noise sometimes.
>video essays
Can be cool when they stick to facts and aren't just MatPat tier fabrications and headcanon.
Video essays where it's just an autist ranting like it's a conversation is funny. But the ones where the dude is trying to be overly dramatic like Super eye patch wolf or the one dude who made the treasure planet video annoy the shit out of me. Like bro it's not that fricking deep you're talking about season 6 episode 13 of the Simpsons.
Can you even call this an essay? I'm reasonably certain if you turned in a college paper that was the size of a phone book the professor wouldn't even start to read it and would F you on the spot.
It's just an in depth review.
It's inane rambling.
The thing with essays is that you have to assume the person reading/listening doesn't know anything so you have to give them a run down and teach them the thing first before you can explain your opinion or issues. This is hard for many because trying to give a literal QRD can be very hard so many fall in to the trap of just explainIng the entire thing instead of trying to find a simple way to give context.
Do you really need 6 hours to explain why toy story 4 is terrible.
It was an unnecessary sequel.
Look I literally made this dude's point in a singular sentence.
It's a pointless cash grab sequel that undermines the ending of the last film for a story that didn't need to be told.
LunaMedia liked it
with all due respect please frick off with this forced meme
I like them, they can bring up good points I didn't notice before and offer a new perspective. At worst they'll baffle me with an awful introspect or explain a fricking Stars Wars game for half an hour before getting to the point. Overall though it makes for good background noise when working.
6 fricking hours?
Narcissism. Unchecked, irredeemable narcissism.
If the essay is longer than the fricking movie you can go right ahead and have a nice day to be honest
I don't wholly agree with that but 6 hours over a children's movie IS excessive
"I've discovered that most critics themselves are cinematically illiterate. They don't really know much about movies they don't know the history, they don't know the technology they don't know anything so for them to try to analyse they're lost." - George Lucas
The dunning-kruger effect is a psychological phenomenon in which the less a person knows about a subject the more they feel that they're an expert. If a person is so ignorant that they're unable to conceptualise what they don't know they believe they know everything.
Sometimes when one dismisses a critic they use phrases such as "I'd like to see you do something better" or "you can't talk because you can't make something like this" and a counter argument that can be said to all that is "you don't have to be good at something to know when someone else is bad at it". You don't have to be a good basketball player to know and point out when someone else is bad at it, but the thing with that is you would at least have to know how the basketball game works to know. True, you don't need to be good at something to know when someone else is doing it wrong, but you must still have to know what you’re talking about and have credibility.
Even when one is an expert on something they may not be an expert with another thing. You might be an expert at knowing how storytelling works, but they may not be an expert or have a good understanding of the material itself they are critiquing and will be called out by the bigger and knowledgeable fans of that work. To when one points out plot holes that aren't actually there, or when one doesn't even know what a plot hole is in the first place.
1/2
This is a problem with critics of entertainment. They need to know how both storytelling and the show or book they are talking about truly is and it probably takes more than just one casual watch or read in order to do that. A lot of critics on youtube lack that credibility. They usually just give something one casual watch and give their verdict as soon as they do which is really just their first impressions of it.
A youtuber is a person with thoughts and opinions just as much as anyone else, the only difference is a video with lots of views = a microphone. To me, to be truly more credible than most people the individual must have a good set of knowledge of how good and bad storytelling works, a good set of knowledge of the movie or series in question and a good deal of critical thinking and reasoning. To have all of that in one is very rare.
2/2
You don't need to be a five star chef to know when food tastes like shit.
But you do need to know what GOOD actually is and why and to be a critic you need to be able to convey those points. Anyone can say something is bad. And they're within their right to do so. But if you want to explain WHY it's bad you need a better sense than someone who makes 6 hour videos.
but he analyzed the entire movie and compared it to the other entries in the franchise, and he explained how all the characters were assassinated.
That being said, I still love Toy Story 4
That was addressed.
The same way you can casually talk about how you know how to treat some disease better than a professional doctor can, you can give advice to a professional writer, thinking you're as good as they are. But that's not really true.
You don't have to be good at something to know when someone else is doing it bad. But knowing how storytelling works as well as knowing the characters and the story as well as possible is important, and overlooked. Even when one is an expert on something they may not be an expert with another thing. You might be an expert at knowing how storytelling works, but they may not be an expert or have a good understanding of the material itself they are critiquing and will be called out by the bigger and knowledgeable fans of that work. To when one points out plot holes that aren't actually there, or when one doesn't even know what a plot hole is in the first place.
It's actually astounding how often criticism comes off as people pointing out fixes rather than flaws and saying what they would do in their own fanfic version of events.
It can get especially bad when the suggestions they have just create more flaws. Such as causing more plot holes, and betraying the themes of the story that they seem to not be aware of.
The audience is good at pointing out problems not answers.
its a very fine line between thoughtful discussion, interesting insight, sharing, and self-indulgent, stentorian, condescending exercises in false intellect masturbation.
not if you're writing a review, suppose not.
You didn't read anon's post you thought-terminating cliche-spouting dipshit.
>"I've discovered that most critics themselves are cinematically illiterate. They don't really know much about movies they don't know the history, they don't know the technology they don't know anything so for them to try to analyse they're lost." - George Lucas
Let me guess, he said this in response to the reception of the prequels. Sure you want to start your post with that?
I've watched this whole series three times over and it gets funnier each time
Also I don't get why people say that analysis videos longer than the source material are bad
>What does Cinemaphile think of YouTube essays?
It depends on the youtuber.
Some are genuinely insightful. Others that go into autistic detail can be entertaining. But ever since youtube changed monetization to favor longer videos, we got essayists who are overly verbose just to fill time. It's the third worst trend, behind algorithmically generated content and people who just read news articles.
Like others mentioned I like a lot of background noise while I work so I do enjoy huge rambles like these, my issue with the OP is on his commentary videos some of his friend's have very obnoxious voices and ruin the purpose of droning bg noise, like the Toy Story ones with random shrieking banshee
I hate them.
I once knew this guy from old Ace Attorney LPs and he got very autistic when he got to Apollo Justice
Most of them are so boring. I like the short 10-15 minutes ones that explore autistic details. Also most of the ones I've watched were about anime since almost all adult cartoons are too juvenile to even deserve this.
They're purely just things that I put on for the sake of noise that I only occasionally pay attention to
>Six Hours
(82+92+104+100)/60= 6.3
I'm not good with minute decimals, how many minutes does that .3 add up to?
18 minutes
Good for filling time.
Going to a place where fandoms are constantly talking about the piece of media itself is probably better and more credible than someone who gave it a casual watch. Hardcore fans of something probably have better sets of knowledge about it than most. They can debunk what a lot of others say too.
Even Gaza?
I like having them on in the background while I’m drawing. However, I do think some essays are quite nitpicky where they point out minor things that don’t relate to anything.
>6:06:51
>HERE IS LIKE 18 CHAPTERS THAT COMBINED ARE ABOUT 3-4 TIMES LONGER THAN THE ACTUAL MOVIE ITSELF
>0:05
>Toy Story 3 ended the series perfectly, Toy Story 4 was a cash grab.
For me, the ideal length for an essay surrounding media is between 30 minutes to an 1 hour and a half, depending on the material and how in-depth the reviewer goes. Any longer and it's excessive. That said, video essays become a problem when the essay serves as a replacement for the subject, rather than recommendation to the subject. Also, comedy videos/essays with comedy aspects need to be 30 minutes or less (looking at you, Caddicarus)
Amateuristic and meandering. I prefer my information come from sources with production insight or experience. I also appreciate reviewers who can discuss the subject at a fraction of the source's length, or can center their focus on a single thesis. Less is more.
Video essays are responsible for the dearth of media literacy in today's youth.
morons ranting about shit they don't understand.