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

Are MauLer's videos too long?

  • Yes

    Votes: 44 12.4%
  • No

    Votes: 112 31.5%
  • Fuck YES

    Votes: 200 56.2%

  • Total voters
    356

CapeKnight

kiwifarms.net
Lol that video is so dumb for starters stuff that gets remade is usually popcorn entertaiment : terminator , ghostbusters and star wars are not high art or cultural milestones and the dumbest part of this whole concept is that hollywood has always done this, is not a recent thing
The only reason I brought up the video wasn't to prove that Star Wars, Terminator, or Ghostbusters was high art. Nor was it to prove that Hollywood hasn't always been doing things like those. Seems like a lot of you either missed the point I was trying to make or could actually point to a reason why the logic might not be valid instead of knee jerk reactions. If you got something you can point out that I might be misunderstanding, I'll be happy to listen and correct my mistake. I'm not some sperg who'll insist my view is objective and demand you follow it.

It's just part of getting older and more cynical. Older people in the 80's and 90's probably thought those decades sucked too. And so on as you go back farther. Wait about 15 years..the new Star Wars movies will get the fanbase the prequels started to get a couple years back from people who liked them as kids. And yes, it's going to happen.
I don't know, I'm not one of those who say "ah the good old days of having to walk miles to the nearest ATM" when I can just easily transfer cash from my phone now, but the fact that ATMs even existed as opposed to not was also already an improvement. I think things are a little different in terms of how we've changed. Personally, I'm a little skeptical on the fanbase you're talking about. Unlike the prequels, I think the merchandises doesn't seem to be selling as much as it should. There's plenty of Disney SW stuff no one is buying. The kiddies doesn't seem to excited about this particular set of trilogy either, at least from the ones I've seen.

I'd rather not keep going on about SW though, it's not the thread for it.
 

DisaffectedDude

kiwifarms.net
Before the thread gets dragged into the rabbit hole of autism that is Star Wars discussion, has anyone looked into Mauler's supposed clash with Game Maker's Toolkit over the latter criticising Dead Space 2?
No. I did see him do an EFAP about an episode where GMTK simply talks about how he wishes more games would be designed so you could choose whether you want to play with or without map markers, because the current way it's set up is that you can turn off map markers but the game isn't designed to be played without them. It is a very reasonable and straightforward video.

Yet somehow the sperglords manage to spend an hour dissecting and interrupting Mark and his 8-minute video. Unable to understand the difference between 'become immersed' and 'become fully immersed' because English is a foreign language for them. They also rib on Mark for having 'production value'.

It is the best introduction to EFAP, because it shows you how every episode turns out but doesn't take 20 hours to watch. It's still them spending 8 min or so to respond to every 1 min of Mark's video, but that is fucking Sonic the Hedgehog levels of speed for the EFAP crew.
 

José Mourinho

The Special One
Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
So to get this straight, Mueller (I know his name is Mauler but I don't give a fuck) ragged on IHE (I Hate Everything) for changing his mind on TLJ several times after rewatching even though he himself has changed his mind on TFA although it's just for the outrage mob and due to TLJ?
 

Quintex96

kiwifarms.net
So to get this straight, Mueller (I know his name is Mauler but I don't give a fuck) ragged on IHE (I Hate Everything) for changing his mind on TLJ several times after rewatching even though he himself has changed his mind on TFA although it's just for the outrage mob and due to TLJ?
You are thinking about this LOGICALLY not OBJECTIVELY

I would debate you but first I need to catch up on these superchats and memes that proclaim me as intellectually superior to you
 

Korpon

Dead Meme
kiwifarms.net
No. I did see him do an EFAP about an episode where GMTK simply talks about how he wishes more games would be designed so you could choose whether you want to play with or without map markers, because the current way it's set up is that you can turn off map markers but the game isn't designed to be played without them. It is a very reasonable and straightforward video.

Yet somehow the sperglords manage to spend an hour dissecting and interrupting Mark and his 8-minute video. Unable to understand the difference between 'become immersed' and 'become fully immersed' because English is a foreign language for them. They also rib on Mark for having 'production value'.

It is the best introduction to EFAP, because it shows you how every episode turns out but doesn't take 20 hours to watch. It's still them spending 8 min or so to respond to every 1 min of Mark's video, but that is fucking Sonic the Hedgehog levels of speed for the EFAP crew.
That was when I first started noticing their bullshit myself. I found myself agreeing with what Mark said yet they would offer no proper "criticism" or a decent rebuttal to what Mark said and did exactly as you said, sperged out over nothing. It's like they went into that video wanting to hate it no matter what. Also EFAP sucks at talking about video games especially. I know they suck at talking about anything, but video games might be their worse thing to discuss (besides anime).
 

biscuitscilia

kiwifarms.net
Why the fuck is he being so elaborate over what is essentially a throwaway line? No wonder he is taking long on his TFA review when he spergs out over each line in the script
It's the only way he could justify an 11 hour review for a meh film at best.
I like the redundancy of the clip, though. It's almost like he's trying to pretend he has analytical skills so he wrote up a cluster of words that just state the fucking obvious. It could have been a valid point against that scene, that it's pointless filler. But harping on there being "factions" and "kicking the can down the line" is just dumb shit, it's trying to establish that Han never kicked his old habits and gets into shit that goes way over his head. It's stupid but there's nothing deeper to it. Of course, if he organized this point under a section that discusses a larger problem with the film and this being one of the symptoms of it, then we'd be going somewhere. But no, not going over every line of dialogue in a film would be "intellectually dishonest."
 
Last edited:

AnAccount

kiwifarms.net
It's the only way he could justify an 11 hour review for a meh film at best.
I like the redundancy of the clip, though. It's almost like he's trying to pretend he has analytical skills so he wrote up a cluster of words that just state the fucking obvious. It could have been a valid point against that scene, that it's pointless filler. But harping on there being "factions" and "kicking the can down the line" is just dump shit, it's trying to establish that Han never kicked his old habits and gets into shit that goes way over his head. It's stupid but there's nothing deeper to it. Of course, if he organized this point under a section that discusses a larger problem with the film and this being one of the symptoms of it, then we'd be going somewhere. But no, not going over every line of dialogue in a film would be "intellectually dishonest."
Exactly right. one of TFA's biggest issues (for me) is a lack of explaining "Who, What and Why" When it comes to the antagonists in the film. And this would be a valid scene that shows that pattern in TFA. But maulers approach obfuscates things. and he needlessly focus on minute points that just bloat his video.
 

biscuitscilia

kiwifarms.net
Exactly right. one of TFA's biggest issues (for me) is a lack of explaining "Who, What and Why" When it comes to the antagonists in the film. And this would be a valid scene that shows that pattern in TFA. But maulers approach obfuscates things. and he needlessly focus on minute points that just bloat his video.
Absolutely. People used to shit on YouTubers who organized and categorized their video essays as "Plinkett clones" but it's a genuinely useful way to make sure you explain yourself well and why what you're talking about matters.
It's getting to the point where the video essayists he shits on are better at structuring a video than him. At least Just Write gets to the fucking point.
 
Last edited:

Elescondio20

kiwifarms.net
It's kinda funny how Joseph anderson's video on subjectivity came before
this https://youtu.be/E9QU9JouSBs
Because it destroys Mauler's argument so perfectly
and the funniest part is how Mauler bitchs about people using subjectivity as a shield while he uses "objectivity" as a shield.
I also love how he says TLJ is objectively bad at filmmaking while he decides to ignore all aspects of filmmaking except for the script
 

Idiotron

Autismus Prime
kiwifarms.net
There I was, cleaning my room with EFAP in the background, they were replying to a CinemaWins video (it's like reverse CinemaSins, for those who don't know) about Episode 9.
CW says that the sound design in that movie is on point (which it is, all the technical stuff in that movie is great).
They reply saying shit like: "Yeah... there sure were sounds...."
Is that all you have to say? Literally every single Youtube reviewer can say more about that.
Stuff like this shows that they're amateurs who get by on never shutting up.

Later CW started praising the movie for other technical stuff, to which they responded that it "doesn't matter as much"....
Sound, visuals and acting don't matter in an audio-visual medium...
I would be fine with them just saying "we just like analyzing the story, we're noobs at other stuff" but they're acting smug while saying that 90% of the movie is irrelevant.

Someone from MauLer's fanboys has to be reading this.
If you are, ask him to talk extensively about a movie without mentioning the story.
If he agrees (which he won't unless you sent a generous superchat), he'll be tripping over his own thoughts because he's a rookie.
 

Raging Capybara

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
They can't appreciate books either. Literature has a beauty in itself, it doesn't need a narrative to be art.

These EFAP losers are probably the kind of people who considers some music bad because it has "dumb lyrics". They don't give a shit about scales, chords, melodies, rhythm, progression, modulation, cadences, and so on, they genuinely think music can be summed up to lyrics and nothing else.

If Mauler has ever to criticize a book someday, he won't even acknowledge its style, form, flow, vocabulary, or any other kind of aesthetic choice by the author. Only the story matters for mauler. He's a moronic person.
 

PenguinSuitAlice

Behold!
kiwifarms.net
One of the things that caused me to break off from Mauler was the fact that he has the knowledge of a typical person but comes off as authoritative because he sounds intelligent. I realized I could probably make reviews of the same quality and substance if I put in the time and effort that he does.
There is little point in watching a reviewer that is less knowledgeable than myself, especially one of such rigid opinions like Mauler. Usually someone who is like that will have a sense of humor or editing skills that makes up for it, but Mauler's joke's usually never land and are becoming more and more defined by in-jokes from the community. In all honesty, the only unique appeal he has is that his reviews are very long, and can work well as background noise when doing other things. He doesn't have any critical skills other than sounding British.
 

José Mourinho

The Special One
Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Surprised he doesn't at least read some books given he depicts himself as some objectivity critic whatever the fuck that is. If it's true then he's just a generic consoomer but just hatewatching.

Any videos that show how Mauler and his gang brag about not reading books though?
 

PenguinSuitAlice

Behold!
kiwifarms.net
Surprised he doesn't at least read some books given he depicts himself as some objectivity critic whatever the fuck that is. If it's true then he's just a generic consoomer but just hatewatching.

Any videos that show how Mauler and his gang brag about not reading books though?
They never really brag about it. It's more like when they analyse a video where a reviewer brings up philosophic concepts or talks about more cerebral topics about film-making, they often dismiss the argument. They come from the philosophy of 'anyone can be a movie critic' and that professional movie critics are pretentious gatekeepers. They are actually quite anti-intellectual for people who put on airs of being intellectuals with the whole 'objectivity' nonsense. As the above posters have said, they only care about the script. Everything else is window dressing to them.

Here's a good example, I hope. The thing with efap is that they have too many videos that and too long and I don't what to re-watch them and scour for examples.
Another good example would be his april fools videos, which are based off of moments from reviews they watched on efap, making a 'parody' of them.
 
Last edited:

Not Even Twice

kiwifarms.net
Fucking hell, even with it running in the background it is a marathon to get through. Been a while since I listened to one of these streams and the level of smug circlejerk has increased greatly. Unfortunately it has come with increasing idiocy as well. I recall in some previous one of these things where they spent several minutes mocking some guy for taking something too literal. This entire episode was full of them being obtuse and moronic to the point where I just stopped the video and listened to something less infuriating.
 

biscuitscilia

kiwifarms.net
They never really brag about it. It's more like when they analyse a video where a reviewer brings up philosophic concepts or talks about more cerebral topics about film-making, they often dismiss the argument. They come from the philosophy of 'anyone can be a movie critic' and that professional movie critics are pretentious gatekeepers. They are actually quite anti-intellectual for people who put on airs of being intellectuals with the whole 'objectivity' nonsense. As the above posters have said, they only care about the script. Everything else is window dressing to them.

Here's a good example, I hope. The thing with efap is that they have too many videos that and too long and I don't what to re-watch them and scour for examples.
Another good example would be his april fools videos, which are based off of moments from reviews they watched on efap, making a 'parody' of them.
I recall there was a guy who said that you do need to gatekeep film criticism sometimes because it's such a beast of a topic that people underestimate the effort and patience it takes to actually understand why film works the way it does.
And Mauler is probably the best example for why gatekeeping isn't necessarily a bad thing. You get people like him who know maybe less than the bare minimum of film and acts like he's hot shit. To the point where he puts down other people because they don't play along with his (extremely limited) views on film.
He nitpicks superficial and surface level details of a film and that's it. It's true that anyone can do that but if anyone can do that then where's the worth of your critique? If all I had to do to come to a conclusion about film is just watch out for plot holes and take things at face value then why would I, or anyone, ever bother watching eleven hours of you doing what I can do in two?
So when someone asks why he doesn't take more time to expand his knowledge on film, his response is essentially to dismiss the idea that reading about film is helpful. They treat it as if it's a pseudo-science when it's not. If you actually read a book about film, you'll know there's a lot of care and ideas that go into crafting a great film. People who often say that reading books about a subject is worthless have never read a book before. Imagine telling someone who wants to be a psychiatrist or a programmer not to read books about their fields because "it's pretentious gatekeeping!"
It's even more baffling because his whole career is about playing up the objective shtick.
To that I say: show me your credentials, faggot.
It's not that I think everyone needs to be shutout of talking about film. If you're just trying to learn the ropes and you're really eager to learn more about it, then go ahead and do whatever.
But when you don't know anything about it and pretend to be an authority on it, go fuck yourself. Why would I let you tell me what I can or can't talk about with film when you don't even know how film works?
 
Last edited:

CapeKnight

kiwifarms.net
I recall there was a guy who said that you do need to gatekeep film criticism sometimes because it's such a beast of a topic that people underestimate the effort and patience it takes to actually understand why film works the way it does.
And Mauler is probably the best example for why gatekeeping isn't necessarily a bad thing. You get people like him who know maybe less than the bare minimum of film and acts like he's hot shit. To the point where he puts down other people because they don't play along with his (extremely limited) views on film.
He nitpicks superficial and surface level details of a film and that's it. It's true that anyone can do that but if anyone can do that then where's the worth of your critique? If all I had to do to come to a conclusion about film is just watch out for plot holes and take things at face value then why would I, or anyone, ever bother watching eleven hours of you doing what I can do in two?
So when someone asks why he doesn't take more time to expand his knowledge on film, his response is essentially to dismiss the idea that reading about film is helpful. They treat it as if it's a pseudo-science when it's not. If you actually read a book about film, you'll know there's a lot of care and ideas that go into crafting a great film. People who often say that reading books about a subject is worthless have never read a book before. Imagine telling someone who wants to be a psychiatrist or a programmer not to read books about their fields because "it's pretentious gatekeeping!"
It's even more baffling because his whole career is about playing up the objective shtick.
To that I say: show me your credentials, faggot.
It's not that I think everyone needs to be shutout of talking about film. If you're just trying to learn the ropes and you're really eager to learn more about it, then go ahead and do whatever.
But when you don't know anything about it and pretend to be an authority on it, go fuck yourself. Why would I let you tell me what I can or can't talk about with film when you don't even know how film works?
Mauler's allergic to learning. Why should he learn? He's already achieved his final form. If he admits he needs to learn anything about films, then he can't be the pseudo objectivist he claims to be.
 
Tags
None