Callum Nathan Thomas Edmunds / MauLer93 / MauLer - Discussion of a youtube reviewer

Are MauLer's videos too long?

  • Yes

    Votes: 44 12.0%
  • No

    Votes: 114 31.1%
  • Fuck YES

    Votes: 208 56.8%

  • Total voters
    366

Otis Boi

Chunky Cow man extraordinaire
kiwifarms.net
I admit I think his video are way to long at least for me. I guess I cant really complain because atleast he isn't as rambly as his freind rag or insufferably smug as hbomber.

I just cant watch his stuff because his voice is so monotone that everything blends together after the first 15 minutes but it is good background noise when grinding.
 

mrdk_04

In semi-autist hell.
kiwifarms.net
I'll start off by saying I like his content, especially his vids on Yooka Laylee, Star Wars and Dark Souls 2 (Hbomb response).
Then again, I am a devout follower of the SW-containment thread.

His videos are too long, but I have a certain respect for his dedication and patience while making them.
That thoroughness really lends itself well to conclusions and closing statements.

Mauler has very harsh opinions on other video essayists, but I am inclined to agree with him.

Lastly, he really is autistic enough to not make a single mistake while editing his newest video across those 2:42 hours.

I look forward to his continued crusade against shitty videos and/or content creators, godspeed you crazy sperg.
 

Lensherr

kiwifarms.net
He really needs to learn to condense himself. Maybe then I'll watch his videos. Also I find his a-logging of recent Star Wars movies kind of sad.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I have nothing against long-form video essays on movies, TV, and video games. I think RedLetterMedia's Plinkett Reviews are some of the best YouTube videos of all time, but even he manages a certain degree of succinctness.
 
Last edited:

AnAccount

kiwifarms.net
He goes way to deep. I'm not a fan of the "All you haters do is nitpick" Stuff, but if you're going to go seriously this deep, analyze every single scene for a few minutes, you're going to find problem literally everywhere, Most movies are fiction, most movies don't follow physical time, for that alone pretty much every movie is going to have scenes that can be picked apart for hours like Mauler does. His saving grace is he does this only to bad movies, so because the movie is already bad you assume his insane level of nitpick and observation is actually the reason behind why the movie is bad, and that it is all deserved, when it really isn't. The primary issues with the last jedi are much more overall then that, and can quite easily and accurately be summised within a 15 minute video if that, Mauler is just a living IMDB mistakes page.

What he does is no better then What a cow, The mysterious MrEnter does to cartoons, Mauler just presents himself much better and has the benefit of only applying this method to films that are genuinely bad, when he could just as easily do it to, say Pulp Fiction, or any list of great films.
 

JohnDoe

If you loot, then I shoot!
kiwifarms.net
Mauler just presents himself much better and has the benefit of only applying this method to films that are genuinely bad, when he could just as easily do it to, say Pulp Fiction, or any list of great films
He wouldn't be able to generate 6+ hours of content from a good movie. Have you even seen his videos? He's not complaining about the orientation of buttons on the lapel of an extra changing between shots, fuckwit.
 

howyadoin

Here’s the tea
kiwifarms.net
I like his approach to movies and it's exactly how an art critic approaches art: you observe the elements as is, find the meaning behind said elements, and compare them with other movies with similar elements and themes to determine its quality.
 

Mapo Tofu

Ain't no tofu like mapo tofu
kiwifarms.net
I hold similiar views regarding film analysis in general, and I appreciate and respect his efforts to deliver thorough criticism.

You can disagree with him, but outright dismissal is pretty poor form.
I was not saying it in an "Lol your opinion invalid form"
Rather because of such an aggressive response.
However now that I see your view on analysis I understand why.
Pardon the misunderstatement
 

Loxiozzz

Weebtastic
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I liked his review of yooka-laylee but I never finished all of it because there was too much. I appreciate all the effort he put into it and his explanations, but holy shit that's a lot to watch. I've seen every issue he adresses done in under 30 minutes by other channels. His livestreams are good tho. Listening to those while doing errands is fun.
 

Keep Yourself Safe

REAL ASS DUDE
kiwifarms.net
I know I've watched some of his reviews but I can't remember much about them, but that's probably because I like to put on long YouTube rants when I go to sleep.
That's how I got in to him, horrendously long youtube videos/podcasts about something interesting quietly playing are the only way I can snatch any sleep sober and he delivers. His two furry chums Rags and Wolf are actually alright as well, if I was making a Schindlers List for furries I'd put them on it. All the targets he so long windedly and politely shits on are fully deserving of it as well, H-Bomber guy, Rian Johnson, Patrick H Willems etc.
 

AnAccount

kiwifarms.net
He wouldn't be able to generate 6+ hours of content from a good movie. Have you even seen his videos? He's not complaining about the orientation of buttons on the lapel of an extra changing between shots, fuckwit.
I have watched his videos, I agree with a lot of the points in them, but because of his insistence on nitpicking specific instances within a single scene he ends up giving far to much credit to tiny details or loses context with specific details within a scene, criticizing them but forgetting the context that specific scenes, actions and other such stuff has within the films he judges.

Movies aren't scenes to be judged independently, nitpicking each shot, piece of dialogue and scene as if it's an independent creation with no relevancy to the larger context of the film, genre, goal and atmosphere. That means you lose track of what actually makes a film good or bad.

The reason I used pulp fiction is that it for example employs unconventional framing and passage of time that could be nitpicked constantly, but the reason it isn't shit and isn't nitpicked is because when judging it you don't judge the scenes on their own as a jumbled mess but as to how they fit into the larger context of the whole movie and what that's supposed to evoke. This is why taking apart specific scenes like Mauler does is quite literally 'missing' the point as like he can often do, you end up ignoring the greater context and goals of the movie to point out three hours of IMDB mistakes like anyone that isn't autistic actually cares.


Ironically this means his 'unbridled rage' videos are often much, much better then his multi hour slogs of videos, because he actually you know, reviews a movie and talks about a movie in those videos, and doesn't needlessly focus on and review Scenes within a movie for multiple hours like in his other videos.
 

Johnny Bravo

Bravokin
kiwifarms.net
That's how I got in to him, horrendously long youtube videos/podcasts about something interesting quietly playing are the only way I can snatch any sleep sober and he delivers. His two furry chums Rags and Wolf are actually alright as well, if I was making a Schindlers List for furries I'd put them on it. All the targets he so long windedly and politely shits on are fully deserving of it as well, H-Bomber guy, Rian Johnson, Patrick H Willems etc.
I don't enjoy the wolf guy's voice enough to put him on. He's also way more autistic than Mau as far as I can tell.
 

Goku 1000000 O

d91550
kiwifarms.net
I appreciate the effort he puts into his videos and I believe that he does make substantial points.
He just needs to learn how to trim the fat, the reason why video essays on Movies got popular is because the long reviews (Plinkett, YMS, E;R) were either really funny or the insightful ones were short and sweet (Every Frame).

Also I have some significant criticism for him, he isn't really addressing his critics' point (or at least the most substantial version) in his newest video and it eats up about an hour of time.
When people bring up an objection towards an objective way of valuing or analyzing a movie their essential issue is that any objective approach can be dismissed because of the subjective nature of art. If you want to defeat that point you'll need to make an argument as to why art is not subjective (as in some criteria by which it can be appreciated) or demonstrate the value of your "subjective" standard.
Personally, I would've just ignored your critics in for this series because I don't see how that section adds to your analysis of TFA.

I look forward to the rest of his work regardless, but yeah I think thats a blunder.
 
Last edited:

AnAccount

kiwifarms.net
There is no objectively true way to observe art.

If a Movie plays and no one is there to watch it is it bad or not? What's going to judge? Is their some actual objective universal measure like math you can use to judge it?

You can point out flaws in this and that, but at the same time those are flaws that have been decided to be bad by humans because that's how they feel, there's no universal objectivity that states you can't enjoy ten hours of static television. You most likely won't, but what you, or any human likes or values can't be said to be objective outside of the influence of a higher being (If god says X is bad and Y is good, he's probably right, but Mauler isn't god)
 
Last edited:
Tags
None