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

Are MauLer's videos too long?

  • Yes

    Votes: 48 12.6%
  • No

    Votes: 114 29.9%
  • Fuck YES

    Votes: 219 57.5%

  • Total voters
    381

The Old Lurker

Hidden Tiger, Crouching Dragon
kiwifarms.net
I do think the screenplay is more important than some people seem to think. No amount of fancy camera angles or good acting will save a truly terrible script, but at the same time, a good script can be completely ruined with poor execution. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably doesn't understand the process of filmmaking and what it actually takes to get something off the page and into something resembling a decent film. To say it's the only thing that matters in a film is absurdly reductive, and I say this as someone who does screenwriting as a hobby.

This is why I like RedLetterMedia so much, and why they're the only YouTube film critics I've stuck with over the years. They're filmmakers themselves, so they understand the process and craft far better than half these idiots, and yet still don't huff their own farts, take things ridiculously seriously or get involved in stupid slapfights with nobodies.
I feel like if a movie truly excels in one area then it will always have an audience even if it fails in all other aspects.
For instance if you take a musical like Rocky Horror, Tommy, or Sgt. Pepper. None became cult classics based on the plot or script it's all atmosphere and music. To use more conventional examples a lot of B-tier horror and sci-fi films of the 70s and 80s will always be fondly remembered among certain circles due to their special effects, even if the scripts are irredeemably bad.

It can swing the other way too. The Man from Earth is literally home movie tier in presentation, yet its 7.9 IMDB score is a testament to its strong script and high concept plot.

Of course for people like Mauler they can't acknowledge that some people look for different things in film. To them stuff like music or special effects are merely icing on the cake.
 

biscuitscilia

kiwifarms.net
I do think the screenplay is more important than some people seem to think. No amount of fancy camera angles or good acting will save a truly terrible script, but at the same time, a good script can be completely ruined with poor execution. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably doesn't understand the process of filmmaking and what it actually takes to get something off the page and into something resembling a decent film. To say it's the only thing that matters in a film is absurdly reductive, and I say this as someone who does screenwriting as a hobby.

This is why I like RedLetterMedia so much, and why they're the only YouTube film critics I've stuck with over the years. They're filmmakers themselves, so they understand the process and craft far better than half these idiots, and yet still don't huff their own farts, take things ridiculously seriously or get involved in stupid slapfights with nobodies.
Film making really is an art form of art forms: written, visual, audio, sequencing (And maybe acting as a fifth art form. Though, I don't believe it's distinct enough from visuals to be its own category.)
They all come together, none of them are less important than the other. What distinguishes a good film from a great film from a masterpiece is how well it does all 4 or 5. That's what separates them.
I can enjoy a film with a weak script but strong visuals so as long as the story still functions as a narrative but it'll only ever be just a "good" or meh film.
 

PenguinSuitAlice

Behold!
kiwifarms.net
In the posts above you keep on bringing up films that are considered good on things other than their screenplays. I hate to play the devil's advocate here but, if he watched and enjoyed those movies, he would say that his enjoyment falls under the umbrella of subjective quality or bring up the fact that the other qualities are objectively good which makes up for the weak script. In the end, its just a shield to defend his personal tastes. His ideology on objectivity/subjectivity isn't necessarily wrong from a theory standpoint, just too rigid and the preachers of it are massive hypocrites who are convinced they are right. He's just bad at criticizing things on anything other than the script because he is a total layman when it comes to film and doesn't like being proved wrong. If he actually practiced his own preaching, he'd accept objective criticism and acknowledge his shortcomings and improve himself so that his criticism is more objective. He only backpedals if someone calls him out for getting a fact blatantly wrong. Other than that, he is convinced his way of thinking is right and will use twisted logic to defend his point and make it seem like it is unassailable.
 
Last edited:

Iqalouses

kiwifarms.net
View attachment 1369774
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHdkCaIHM1Y
View attachment 1369794
[Dishonoured Wolf]
Drive would be a good film for Mauler to review and humiliate himself.

Imagine him saying the ending, where the protagonist sits in his car immobile for 4 minutes before taking any action, is too boring and stupid. This is the best scene in the film.
I would love to see him tackle something like Videodrome or Lost Highway.
I know it has become a meme word, but Callum might legitimately have Aspergers to the point to where he can't function in the real world. I feel bad for the guy.
 

biscuitscilia

kiwifarms.net
His ideology on objectivity/subjectivity isn't necessarily wrong from a theory standpoint, just too rigid and the preachers of it are massive hypocrites who are convinced they are right.
I think it's more that his "criteria" and "methods" are vague and arbitrarily imposed.
In his narcissistically titled "Mauler on Video Essay and Art Analysis" video, he says there's a measurable "objective" criteria that is satisfied by evidence. What the fuck he means by that, who knows. I assume it's tied to what he speaks about later of "immersion" and "satisfaction" being the metric that is measurable but the problem is, those values are completely subjective.
Both he and Shadiversity make essentially the same argument about this which I already addressed, so I won't get too into it. And there's already a decent document dissecting this (if you excuse the dumb example of a floor being subjective, it's a pretty great rebuttal.)
But because it's so vague, it means they just arbitrarily impose it on movies. A great example was an episode of EFAP that gave the original "Toy Story" a free pass because it doesn't try to explain the consistency problems with its setting. Which is absolutely retarded to do because if all I need to do to handwave away consistency problems in a narrative was not to address it at all, then every film he bitches about could use that same defense.
That "criteria" didn't mean shit when talking about a beloved film he grew up with.
I don't understand what their problem is with explaining objectivity. They treat it like a fucking political ideology, this flawless, infallible word that gives them so much "authority." I never saw objectivity as being something so weighty that they need to philosophize about it. I always figured it just meant "be straightword, be honest, don't be biased."
View attachment 1369774
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHdkCaIHM1Y
View attachment 1369794
[Dishonoured Wolf]

I would love to see him tackle something like Videodrome or Lost Highway.
I know it has become a meme word, but Callum might legitimately have Aspergers to the point to where he can't function in the real world. I feel bad for the guy.
Some of your links don't work but of course, Mauler ironically uses the word "tisms" on EFAP but if you unironically call him autistic, he gets rather irate and dismissive about it. Or he just goes "no u."
 

Draza

Rasistički
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I would like to see Mauler review a movie like Children of Men. A movie that takes place in future UK where a fascist authortarian government takes over and treats immigrants like second-class citizens. Also the only people to fight against the government are left-wing pro-immigrant militants.
 

biscuitscilia

kiwifarms.net
I would like to see Mauler review a movie like Children of Men. A movie that takes place in future UK where a fascist authortarian government takes over and treats immigrants like second-class citizens. Also the only people to fight against the government are left-wing pro-immigrant militants.
He'd probably fucking hate it, the film's setting has a lot of stuff that'll trigger his autism. And that's not even mentioning the film's political stance. They treat films like Skeptics treat politics, it's all black and white. You're either against them (subjective) or for them (objective). A film like Children of Men could be seen as anti-western but what matters is the film's story and how well it's done. Something the EFAP crew can't comprehend or separate. I'd personally love to see them embarrass themselves by trying to critique 2001 or A Clockwork Orange.
 

biscuitscilia

kiwifarms.net
This really makes me laugh considering Mauler is often cruel to other creators, even though they don't all look up to him, he's definitely insensitive and domineering enough towards them that he hosts a stream where they lynch other creators for what is essentially their opinion. Often even just given harmlessly.
The other thing that makes me laugh is the idea that any of these films are in anyway the kind of cinema Scorsese talks about. They're not. They don't even hold a candle to films from people like Ingmar Bergman, Akira Kurosawa or Stanley Kubrick.
And that's alright, they never needed to be. They worked as a genre fiction but to pretend that Infinity War is as good as Winter Light or Seventh Seal would be, well, "intellectual disingenuous" as they'd like to put it.
It looks like Mauler isn't fully up to speed on the objective classification of motions pictures:
View attachment 1385396
As we can see, capeshit clearly falls in the category of 'Flick'.


Scorsese's comment stung him badly, judging by that last sentence.
Is actually a meme picture /tv/ passed around back in the day but it's unironically fairly accurate in distinguishing the different types of films and broad scopes they can encompass.
 
Last edited:

buying gf

fite me 1v1 wildy
kiwifarms.net
This really makes me laugh considering Mauler is often cruel to other creators, even though they don't all look up to him, he's definitely insensitive and domineering enough towards them that he hosts a stream where they lynch other creators for what is essentially their opinion. Often even just given harmlessly.
The other thing that makes me laugh is the idea that any of these films are in anyway the kind of cinema Scorsese talks about. They're not. They don't even hold a candle to films from people like Ingmar Bergman, Akira Kurosawa or Stanley Kubrick.
And that's alright, they never needed to be. They worked as a genre fiction but to pretend that Infinity War is as good as Winter Light or Seventh Seal would be, well, "intellectual disingenuous" as they'd like to put it.

Is actually a meme picture /tv/ passed around back in the day but it's unironically fairly accurate in distinguishing the different types of films and broad scopes they can encompass.
Yeah, that's where I got the picture from. It's just funny that people get so terribly upset when something they like isn't considered to be the highest level of entertainment. I really like Terry Pratchett's Discworld books, but I would never consider them to be 'literature' or whatever the equivalent would be, and if some famous author came out and said as much, it wouldn't bother me or change my opinion of the books. It's fine to like things that aren't considered highbrow or intellectual, but Mauler wants to be seen as an intellectual, therefore the media he consumes must be intellectual.
 

biscuitscilia

kiwifarms.net
Yeah, that's where I got the picture from. It's just funny that people get so terribly upset when something they like isn't considered to be the highest level of entertainment. I really like Terry Pratchett's Discworld books, but I would never consider them to be 'literature' or whatever the equivalent would be, and if some famous author came out and said as much, it wouldn't bother me or change my opinion of the books. It's fine to like things that aren't considered highbrow or intellectual, but Mauler wants to be seen as an intellectual, therefore the media he consumes must be intellectual.
Absolutely agree, I can enjoy genre entertainment as much as the next guy but it's not the best the medium of film has to offer and thinking it is shows a complete lack of experience. Mauler wants to pretend his capeshit is unironically art on the same level as some of the greats when they're just flicks. There's nothing wrong with flicks and mindless entertainment, just don't pretend that this is the pinnacle of the medium.
 
Tags
None