Adam Johnston / YourMovieSucks / YourMovieSucksDOTorg / AnUnkindness - It's hip to fuck dogs.
- Thread starter InLivingTuna
- Start date
-
Sustained Denial of Service attacks. Paid for botnet. Service will continue to be disrupted until I can contact other providers and arrange a fix. Sister services to the forum will have longer downtime. There's still ongoing service-level attacks which are causing intermittent errors and general slowness.
Product Placement
kiwifarms.net
Nathan for You is a great show, and the summit ice episode is funny as fuck
But he is crazy if he thought reviewing the show would have killed it, I mean his videos get less views that the clips of Nathan for You posted on Youtube, and many of stuff from the show ended up going viral with Nathan doing interviews after. about them
PeriodicTrouble
kiwifarms.net
He gave Soul 6/10. Does anyone else think he was a bit off in this review? Like he was depressed, tired, or just apathetic about making the video? He didn't really talk about the good things about the movie until the end and that was about 30 seconds of saying positive things and the rest of the review was just negative.
I think he is tired cause he is still editing the Lion King review
Wasn't that supposed to come out like a year ago?
Yes, and then he got side-tracked by the entirety of the Kimba franchise.
Adam is actually now at Be Prepared.
Honestly that's how a lot of his reviews go IIRC, just whine and nitpick dumb shit for a long time then randomly mention the things he liked right at the end which he barely goes into. Peak YouTube "critic" here.
PeriodicTrouble
kiwifarms.net
You're right about that. The thing is he gave it a 6, which on his scoring system is a positive review. He really should've talked about the positive aspects more so people understand that he likes the movie overall, but just has some issues with it. If there wasn't a lot of positive things to talk about, he should of just given Soul a lower score instead.
Yea his rating system is a bit dumb. He can ramble on and on about negative stuff in a movie like he did here to the point where it seems like he absolutely hates it and thinks it's shit, but then at the end go "oh it was ok I guess idk" and slap a average or slightly above average rating on it. It's another reason why I stopped watching his "reviews", they don't make sense. I guess it's easier to whine about tiny details then to actually talk about the positives of a movie properly (which takes more effort and knowledge on film), and more people tend to enjoy listening to someone bitch about something rather then praising something.
He also does the opposite. His Dora the Explorer review started with praise and actually saying it was kind of funny and how it does some things better than Disney but he slapped it with a 3/10 at the end kind of arbitrarily.
Quickie: Dora and the Lost City of Gold - YouTube
Maybe he would've rated it higher if it had more Swiper in it, if you know what I mean.
You have done god's work.
Before I watch this, let me give a few of my expectations.
Furry joke.
WOAAH PRIDE ROCK.
Comparison to the original for over 9000 hours.
Something extremely uncomfortable.
Here are my actual thoughts on it now that I actually watched it:
It's typical "LOOK AT THIS! ITS BAD." garbage.
Adam only finds details about one specific thing at a time and just spouts out how bad it is without realizing the decisions for why things are what they are. Even when he does, he doesn't go deeper into what he says, gets communicated in a too subtle way, and/or go by so fast you blink if you miss it. All of his counterpoints are all huge, huge strawman of the director which won't be useful at all for anyone who wants to take away something useful.
The best example of this is 26:15 where he talks at a specific part of the first song of the Lion King where it was changed. There's already a good video by Tantacrul (which I'll link here if you want to watch it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnQiyfRYOgo ) about how to fuck up singing Hallelujah.
In short, it's perfectly okay to change up a song, but unless if it's really simple, then it's necessary to consider how it works otherwise the result will be awful.
Instead of considering how the changes can work, he just says that the reason the change doesn't work is that it was written like that for a reason where he follows with a chiasmus. "The emotional impact of the original song comes from singing the notes that were written, not from singing notes that were somewhere around the notes that were written." This only leaves me asking questions like since the singing is around the notes that were written, doesn't that mean the singing is okay? Are you trying to say that without this specific effect used in the singer's voices makes it sound like they're getting ahead of themselves? And before I knew it, the joke happened.
Just be clear with your audience Adam. Your inner critic can't hide from you forever and before you know it, you'll have a watchable video.
It's like that one Statefarm Commerical with the fisherman.
Ohhh... you nearly became watchable there!
Last edited by a moderator:
So it's Mauler-quality nitpicking, but even more annoying. I'm reminded of a bit in his Kimba video where he makes a satire of "Lion King stole from Kimba!" videos using an older comic, except it went on and on and on. Jesus, we get it.
It feels like sometimes when he's watching a film he'll latch onto a scene and will sit there during the movie stewing about it and make up imaginary scenarios about it and then miss explanations for things because he wasn't paying attention and then will do it again several times over the course of a film. He totally goes into movies hating them, especially if they do plots he's seen before and ESPECIALLY if characters do things that he personally would not. He can watch artsy films that openly suggest suspending your disbelief but is incapable of doing that for literally any other film.
His Soul review reminded me of his Lovely Bones review where he goes on and on about how senses wouldn't persist in an afterlife because it's all in our body parts and the body's dead now, instead of just accepting that it's a premise in this movie, based on a common belief about life after death. It's not as if he has to believe in it himself in real life, just accept that it's true in the world in which the story takes place. It'd be like questioning magic in a fantasy film, you don't have to constantly reassert that you're too euphoric to believe in silly superstitions like magic when you're reviewing something like Lord of the Rings.
Adam seems to have extreme autism when it comes to these things but holy shit his questioning of how Souls work was the dumbest shit I've seen when it's just based on a common concept.
It's like his fedora comes out and he has to make sure the whole audience knows he's a rational atheist who would never believe in this stuff, before he can actually analyse a film in which this common belief/cultural convention is true. Just accept it's set in a universe where this bit of folklore is real, you can complain that it should be consistent within the rules of that universe but those aren't really set up from what I could tell, not having seen the film myself.
That review sticks out in my memory because it's such a strange nitpick. I think of answers to it using my own lore but it doesn't really need one because you can't prove how souls work, they're just an idea. You can make up your own lore behind souls if you wanted.
Why do ghosts need to be emotionless? Isn't the point of ghosts is that a person's ego is still lingering so what's ego without emotion?
Similar threads
Popular furry artist with a penchant for being rapey & an ego that could black out the sun
Powertripping Discord staff member with a dash of cub-defending and furfaggotry, AKA the "cub porn Discord mod"
Unapologetic hack producing nonstop clickbait, exploits dead people for views
