|
SatansBestBuddy posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKSU82afy1w Yeah it completely captures the spirit of the original. I've made sure to get my nephews watching it as I'd far rather see them watching DuckTales over a lot of the braindead stuff that's out there.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
Pirate Jenny posted:He quietly unfriended me from Facebook a few days before the doc dropped (but about three days after he had quietly unfriended MarzGurl and Pushing Up Roses). He's not oblivious. Seems like Doug learned a few things from Jontron when they did that little crossover bit. Just keep your head low for some time until everything blows over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 13:05
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Is there a word for when you're actively trying to be oblivious, cutting yourself from all paths of information so that you can maintain even a flimsy veneer of deniability? Obliviating? Denialous? Shirktration? It’s just cowardice. I am so sick of that guy. AND he’s a hack on top of being poo poo and also a spineless weiner. Most people have at least one quality good enough to lead with in an obituary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 13:30
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:It’s just cowardice. I am so sick of that guy. AND he’s a hack on top of being poo poo and also a spineless weiner. Most people have at least one quality good enough to lead with in an obituary. I thought Doug didn't know how to use social media?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 13:40
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Wouldn't we have to wait for 20 years to judge this? Remember, some stuff only got popculturally relevant long after it flopped horribly. Also both TMNT and DuckTales came out at a time where it didn't have to compete with way, waaay , waaaaaaay more media accessible to kids. As in, kids had to wait longer for episodes to be made and then broadcasted at x time, possibly also having to either be there to watch or have a VCR to tape the episode while someone else was watching. Modern Ducktales (and modern TMNT) are now available on a medium where I can grab a rectangle outside and watch it... along with every other cartoon that managed to stick itself into youtube and netflix and cable broadcast systems and so on. One of the weirdest ways I've seen of broadcasting cartoons to kids was around the early 2000's, on hospital waiting rooms. Rather than have someone curate for animation that would be understandable if muted and would last for a few minutes rather around an half hour or long, they'd show like, segments of Pokemon and Winx that would show at random, sometimes muted. As if whoever was showing that didn't quite knew how cartoons are experienced. In fact it was an odd period where someone writing about cartoons on a portuguese paper could calmly write on how she didn't understand the purpose of Cyberchase, an educational cartoon about math. I wonder if that may have contributed to those weird bot-automated cartoons on youtube.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
Updating a story previously posted about - a couple weeks ago Matt Conn left his positions at GaymerX and Midboss (makers of 2064: Read Only Memories) following accusations of sexual harassment. Now his replacement, Toni Rocca, has ended up lasting all of a couple of weeks before leaving both companies after allegations of sexual harassment being made against her. Both companies have new CEOs now and have officially cut ties with each other. This whole story makes me angry, what with the way that GaymerX was always represented. It took money from the community and used it to present a space for LGBTQ folk in gaming, and all the while this poo poo's going on behind closed doors. Kind of upsetting. TBH I really don't see how they can survive this - the whole aim of the project (in public anyway) was to present a "safe space" for people, and clearly it has failed miserably in a blaze of allegations of terrible behaviour, threats to ruin careers if sexual advances are turned down and other such awfulness. The culture of Midboss too, was one of mismanagement and misorganisation...kind of familiar. It seems like there's another wave of people who act virtuous all the time in public suddenly getting badly exposed for who they actually are. Between this and Brandon Boyer and obviously the CA stuff...hoo boy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
Kunster posted:I wonder if that may have contributed to those weird bot-automated cartoons on youtube. Ugh, those things creep me out. I guess if you're a child and see these abominations for the first time it's not so bad, but something deep inside my old brain automatically goes into defense mode when I see them. At best, I can interpret them as some kind of horror comedy to keep my calm. It's like my brain subconsciously compares the bot stuff with my memories of the real thing and immediately detects the fakeness, it's quite unsettling
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:It’s just cowardice. I am so sick of that guy. AND he’s a hack on top of being poo poo and also a spineless weiner. Most people have at least one quality good enough to lead with in an obituary. yea jokes aside that's just called being a huge coward. It's lame enough when normal people do it but for a guy who's such a crap reviewer ballooned up entirely through this abusive system it's just pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Wouldn't we have to wait for 20 years to judge this? Remember, some stuff only got popculturally relevant long after it flopped horribly. No. Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters or Robocop were all hugely successful from the getgo. But asides from that , I genuinely think that the biggest reason these modern reboots/remakes don't grab the audience the way the originals did are the changes in the media landscape. They basically try to catch fish with 20 year old bait.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
Kim Justice posted:It seems like there's another wave of people who act virtuous all the time in public suddenly getting badly exposed for who they actually are. Between this and Brandon Boyer and obviously the CA stuff...hoo boy. Positions of power and prestige tend to attract the kind of people who want power and prestige, which is often the kind of person who's inclined to be abusive. This isn't to say that every person in power is an abuser, just that it's no surprise that some abusers make their way into positions that enable abuse. Frankly, I'm just glad we're in a place where people CAN speak out and get abusers outed, rather than have it all hushed up. At least, more than we used to see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
e X posted:No. Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters or Robocop were all hugely successful from the getgo. But asides from that , I genuinely think that the biggest reason these modern reboots/remakes don't grab the audience the way the originals did are the changes in the media landscape. They basically try to catch fish with 20 year old bait. I don't know about other people, but when I first watched the original Ghostbusters a long time after it was originally released and became a major cultural fixture for a certain generation of people, I just didn't really get it at all? It just doesn't seem that funny to me and kind of meandering and structureless?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
Thundersword238 posted:It seems like cancelling the Anniversary was at least partially a reason for a bunch of producers. Nash and Calluna both said that they had considered staying until the special was finished, the project being cancelled last minute was just an extra reason to leave now. I get the impression that since hotels & flights were already bought and booked, some producers were like "least I can do is follow through". Noble enough. So CA cancelling "Some Blockbuster with A Critic: The 10th Anniversary" absolves those producers and really gives them the moral high ground. Thundersword238 posted:I get that expecting CA to be better about communication now was a bit of a stretch, but you'd think they would want to do something, ANYTHING, to try and keep their new people from leaving. Now it just shows that they don't really care for their new talent, and will probably keep them from being able to find any new people, if they even decide to try and find new content creators. At this point, I think they'll wait until they drop below 10 producers, and just shut down the site to focus entirely on the YouTube channel. I'm still kinda gooberstruck at CA's response to this. Well, in that way that a twist ending hits you an expected way. Literally all they had to do for some of these producers was to send out slightly more frequent emails that amounted to nothing more than minutes of a meeting. "Hi everyone. This week we're filming X review. This con is coming up. CA corp year end is soon so expect some tax talk. TTYL". Instead they said "We'll update you by the end of the week"-- AND THEN DIDN'T DO THAT, and went to a convention instead. The one and only thing they promised to do (better communication with producers) they immediately hosed up. BUT all that being said-- I think it comes down to the sociopathy of the management of CA. "We're making money, and these THINGS that you call human feelings and lives-- they do not make us money. Doug and only Doug does. You can all leave, and it's bad for you because you don't get to be around us, you leeches." Producers are leaving. PR is bad. Subscriptions are down. But until and unless VIEWS (and thus ad dollars) dive on their flagship product, nothing will change. (Or, I suppose, every sponsor drops them like a bag of hot fish. But again, teh views!)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
It’s a depressing thought: does Doug bring in million-dollar-range views? Literally everyone else who has ever tried has done infinitely better videos within two years at most, and struggled with income for seven.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:It’s a depressing thought: does Doug bring in million-dollar-range views? Literally everyone else who has ever tried has done infinitely better videos within two years at most, and struggled with income for seven. Not quite, according to social blade each year he brings 42.5k to 680k a year. But if you add in merchandise and sponsorship deals he probably teeters close to a million. Thats the thing, there are all these videos of "The DEATH of Channel Awesome?!?!" but... its not. I mean, sure Channel Awesome the concept, that being a website meant to have multiple reviewers and not be all about Doug, may die. But Nostalgia Critic is going to hum along just fine as he has cultivated a large audience who has been with him for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:It’s a depressing thought: does Doug bring in million-dollar-range views? Literally everyone else who has ever tried has done infinitely better videos within two years at most, and struggled with income for seven. The guestimate from one of the Youtube subscriber/watch is daily average of "$150 - $2.4K". That seems to be $50k - $800k per year, plus merch and sponsorship deals. Dan had some better insight into the actual numbers. https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/achannelthatsawesome
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
Leal posted:Not quite, according to social blade each year he brings 42.5k to 680k a year. But if you add in merchandise and sponsorship deals he probably teeters close to a million. Thats the thing, there are all these videos of "The DEATH of Channel Awesome?!?!" but... its not. I mean, sure Channel Awesome the concept, that being a website meant to have multiple reviewers and not be all about Doug, may die. But Nostalgia Critic is going to hum along just fine as he has cultivated a large audience who has been with him for a long time. Yeah, basically, the reason CA could ignore all their producers that weren't Doug was because he was the major draw and revenue earner. So CA will prbably truck along just fine for the immediate future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
Leal posted:Not quite, according to social blade each year he brings 42.5k to 680k a year. But if you add in merchandise and sponsorship deals he probably teeters close to a million. Thats the thing, there are all these videos of "The DEATH of Channel Awesome?!?!" but... its not. I mean, sure Channel Awesome the concept, that being a website meant to have multiple reviewers and not be all about Doug, may die. But Nostalgia Critic is going to hum along just fine as he has cultivated a large audience who has been with him for a long time. We have no illusions about Doug's shows carrying on regardless, but Channel Awesome itself is another matter. Just how it would look from general public perception, by no means intended as personal insult, when the talent pool drops as sharply as it already has it starts looking less like "some people have left of their own volition" and more like "they are siding with Doug Walker" as the remaining number of critics drops. Which puts pressure on those remaining, even though they're just keeping their heads down and avoiding the whole drama. There's zero possibility of new talent coming in, because the well is well and truly poisoned now so, if/when the remaining critics depart, Channel Awesome as an aggregator and brand is done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
It would be great if at the very least people stopped associating anyone who had ever shared videos there with it forever, such that Doug fans in 2018 would stop pestering past victims about the current state of the place or what’s so bad about old Doug. Which is exactly what touched all this off in the first place. But still—a million loving dollars a year to the stupidest, weakest, least literate human imaginable for waving a toy gun around. AND he’s an irredeemable piece of poo poo. I just can’t handle it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
e X posted:No. Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters or Robocop were all hugely successful from the getgo. But asides from that , I genuinely think that the biggest reason these modern reboots/remakes don't grab the audience the way the originals did are the changes in the media landscape. They basically try to catch fish with 20 year old bait. Yeah, but all your examples had sequels getting gradually worse (Ghostbusters was lucky it stopped at part 2). So these three specific reboots and only them (and even in those three specific cases it could have gone better, as my following examples will show) were doomed from the start. Look instead at the new Star Trek movies: Instead of going up and down like the original movies, the two new ones were apparently hugely successful -in a row. Suddenly the picture isn't as black and white anymore. Also the reboot-wave at least gave me new Duck Tales episodes, so I can't really see it as bad, just a bit silly Edit: Wording slightly changed for better clarity Libluini fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Apr 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:But still—a million loving dollars a year to the stupidest, weakest, least literate human imaginable for waving a toy gun around. AND he’s an irredeemable piece of poo poo. I just can’t handle it. I know right? I work a full time job, and in a single month, on the high end, this guy makes double what I earn in a year working full time retail. This and seeing what DSP can manage to wring out of his audience doesn't help with work related stress. I could have been that chucklefuck making chicky chang wang charlie chan jokes while pointing a webcam at my tv screen, or use the onboard mic of a camcorder to record myself screeching and shooting a fake gun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Yeah, but all your examples had sequels getting gradually worse (Ghostbusters was lucky it stopped at part 2). So the reboots were doomed from the start. Look instead at the new Star Trek movies: Instead of going up and down like the original movies, the two new ones were apparently hugely successful -in a row. Suddenly the picture isn't as black and white anymore. Uhm yes, that is my point? And Star Trek is an interesting comparison, but Star Trek has the advantage that it never went away. It has been a pop cultural stable basically ever since its inception. e X fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Apr 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
e X posted:Uhm yes, that is my point? Did you just skip the rest of my post or what? My point was, only those three specific reboots were doomed and even then it could have gone better, as my following examples show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
In what universe is Stark Trek: Into the Dark regarded as a good movie? Plus, my entire point is that these newer movies don't have the same popcultral impact as the originals have, and you can't honestly argue that the cast of the new movies is in any shape or form as iconic as the Shattner or Steward.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
e X posted:In what universe is Stark Trek: Into the Dark regarded as a good movie? The timeline where it's Wrath of Khan  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
e X posted:In what universe is Stark Trek: Into the Dark regarded as a good movie?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
In positive news, Bennett's doing well: https://twitter.com/BennettTheSage/status/983023467778813952
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Raycevick takes a look at some interesting little games he picked up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Pants Donkey posted:So what are the odds Doug is clueless about this? At least one person’s tried to inform him. https://twitter.com/ashiisms/status/981036740000534528?s=21
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Lindsay Ellis is making statements about working for CA on twitter. Mostly everything you've heard before but this bit I found weird. https://twitter.com/thelindsayellis/status/983046973476356098 Doug wants to do a crossover but does no collaboration on the project. Basically turns up with a pre-written script, has Lindsay parrot his opinions back to him, sleeps on her couch and shares none of the profits with her. I get the feeling that Doug wanted to do Moulin Rouge but felt it would be effeminate/gay if he didn't have Lindsay there to justify him talking about a musical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:I get the feeling that Doug wanted to do Moulin Rouge but felt it would be effeminate/gay if he didn't have Lindsay there to justify him talking about a musical. That is a really weird take on this...
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
e X posted:That is a really weird take on this... I wouldn't call it that big of a stretch, Doug did literally have a Nostalgia Chick just to do reviews of "girly" cartoons from his childhood.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
The only way I can countenance more of the CA story today without being overcome by extreme sadness and anger is to grab at this extremely parenthetical element: a Cheesecake Factory has recently opened in my city and I want to know if I should go, even if I have to go alone?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
lornekates posted:The guestimate from one of the Youtube subscriber/watch is daily average of "$150 - $2.4K". General rule is to take Social Blade's numbers and go right down the middle and then work from there. For a channel that's actively trying to make money (and thus staying on top of monetization issues) that'll give you a conservative estimate to work from, though it almost certainly skews higher. Then you look at the channel itself for how many ads they actually use (SB just estimates based on traffic and engagement, they can't see monetization info). CA places a pre-roll, mid-video popup card, and post-roll on every major video. Now add in the fact that they aggressively track high-CPM times of year and flood them with videos makes me feel pretty confidently putting their AdSense revenue in the $800k+ range. Now add ads from the website. They've got two above the fold ads on every. single. page. But the website is also a much smaller % of traffic given engagement indicators. Like, Doug's Woody Woodpecker video has 58 comments on the website and 9,000 comments on YouTube. So it's not weird at all to postulate that Channel Awesome dot com isn't even that important to Channel Awesome anymore. But anyway that's still extra ad revenue and they do still see substantial aggregate traffic, so probably another $20k or so from site ads. Then there's the embedded brand deals which, lmao, they've signed the top-shelf trash that gets leading sponsorship mention, mid-roll, and top placement in the description. Their sponsors are almost always venture capital-backed trash, so their actual business model is making themselves look important to venture capitalists, so they toss around the bux when it comes to online ads. So, uh, well, you're not going to like this, but those kinds of high density brand deals for videos that can guarantee 500k-1m views as the expectation of performance usually pay upwards of $10k. Each. And CA does 53 of them a year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
I think it was already known that the crossovers were a bad deal for whoever was doing it with Doug since he got to keep the money and control of the scripts
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I don't know about other people, but when I first watched the original Ghostbusters a long time after it was originally released and became a major cultural fixture for a certain generation of people, I just didn't really get it at all? It just doesn't seem that funny to me and kind of meandering and structureless? A lot of it was just how big of a deal the SNL cast was at the time, plus a lot of things in the movie were pretty innovative or unique at the time but are now just so woven into the fabric of comedy that they wouldn't really stand out. When there aren't a lot of choices, every little bit of originality counts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I don't know about other people, but when I first watched the original Ghostbusters a long time after it was originally released and became a major cultural fixture for a certain generation of people, I just didn't really get it at all? It just doesn't seem that funny to me and kind of meandering and structureless? Most of the humor comes from comic timing and the dynamic between the straight man types and, mainly, Venkman. If you didn't care for it, then that might be part of the issue. I think it's pretty smart and funny, personally 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
It seems like self-sabotage to try to make feminist icons out of characters who are pseudo-scientist hustlers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:It seems like self-sabotage to try to make feminist icons out of characters who are pseudo-scientist hustlers. I did find it strange when people tried to portray it as this reversal of a male power fantasy. Because yeah, all the original Ghostbusters are massive losers. That doesn't mean an all female Ghostbusters was a bad idea or whatever, though sadly I don't care for the result because I don't think it's that funny. But when you watch it they don't, like, do anything interesting or feminist with the characters, or use them to make any statements about the original. I guess in some ways it really does show how far Hollywood has come when women can star in lame SNL Sony Pictures cgi comedies just like men can, though I don't think that's the message they intended.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:The only way I can countenance more of the CA story today without being overcome by extreme sadness and anger is to grab at this extremely parenthetical element: a Cheesecake Factory has recently opened in my city and I want to know if I should go, even if I have to go alone? Definitely go. Cheesecake the size of your head.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
corn in the bible posted:I did find it strange when people tried to portray it as this reversal of a male power fantasy. Because yeah, all the original Ghostbusters are massive losers. That doesn't mean an all female Ghostbusters was a bad idea or whatever, though sadly I don't care for the result because I don't think it's that funny. But when you watch it they don't, like, do anything interesting or feminist with the characters, or use them to make any statements about the original. I guess, but I kinda think that retroactively Bridesmaids deserves a ton more credit for that based on how much better it was received and also being a huge hit commercially (whereas GB 2016 wasn't really) - that film showed that such a film can be very successful indeed. Funnily enough, Paul Feig directed both of 'em.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 21:58
|
|