Guys, lets be honest here. Has Mr. Nostalgia ever said no to a pitch?
who are Ron and Abby?
I'm sure that was just a line, but for some reason I see Brad actually having a soft core porn parody of "To kill a mocking bird." Also Tim and Beth where at the con I went to and while I didn't meet them personally, they seemed like interesting for me to want to check out their show, and they seemed like nice people.
I see him having a hard core porn version as well.Also,when is that review?
I must say, Beth looks really damn cute in his video :)
Is this show like American Idol for entrepreneurs?
In a very loose way. I've seen this show a few times and they just come in and present to the sharks and the sharks buy into it or the don't. I don't think they come back like on American idol if they win.
That was.. um...boring.
It was certainly better than the Pop Quiz Hot Shot. I see why you would post this Critic Tank here and not that.
Well it looked like Brad gave a shit this time and didnt look like he said the same things 17 times.
To be perfectly honest, I thought Pop Quiz Hot Shot was an April fools joke the first time I saw it lol
Oh i just assumed it was thrown up to prevent people from calling the authorities for fraud.
i still think the pilot was, considering the quality, but now that the next few episodes are out, i think they're just really bad at it as well.
This was pretty interesting (a fairly clever way of looking at the show, to set the video apart).
I too liked the mention of a "To Kill a Mockingbird" porno. Part of me hopes that exists.
An interesting concept but it does illustrate a huge problem with internet reviewers as a whole.
Brad can get away with his reviews because of how far into the character he made goes as well as his charisma and sheer wit.
However most of these people just sitting in a living room, giving the most generic and broad, undetailed review of something with the inability to articulate specific design and artistic choices or any mentioning of the actual craftsmanship such as lighting, sound design, over all cinematography, color scheme, editing, pacing ect. While lacking over all charisma, delivery, or the wit to make a good joke.
Not shitting on people for trying, all the power to them, god bless, but if you go middle of the road and emulate the nostalgia critic like this you come off as boring and cliche. It doesnt help that the majority of reviewers dont seem to have any experience in film or video/audio production at all, either from classes to even just picking up a book about the subject.
With these you can go 2 ways...Brad Jones and Jon Tron method where your charisma, wit and experience is put to use to make a charming show people can watch all day for the humor, or go the Red Letter Media route and go more towards the technical aspect both script, directing and technology wise while also demonstrating those same skills yourself. Or maby im just some schmuck on the internet blowing it out my ass.
I have to agree with you. The problem today is, because how affordable both cameras and editing software is, most people think they can sit on their couch and pump out a review. Furthermore, working from home, making videos, does sound appealing. But damn is the internet over-saturated with reviews: all of the major categories of pop culture already have been covered. For example, what reason is there for 20 people to review the same Batman game?
And after all of the drama involving Channel Awesome I've read and heard, I'm surprised people are still trying to get on with them.
Same. A lot of the drama really dampers a good bit of the fun, luckily Brad seems to have avoided most of it.
Which is good because now the majority of CA personnel are just chumps at their desk with camcorders thinking 1080p is all you need for a good looking video and to be popular.
And the critic himself is sort fo a microcosm of the entire thing. Which is a shame because i used ot watch all his vids, but his bad set up, where its just two lights against a wall as opposed to 3 point lighting and use of skrims and gels makes looking at him just sitting there really unappealing because (and remember this future film makers) the human eye prefers warm colors like oranges and reds overs blues, teals, ect.
Thats why posters and films use that scheme, the orange is a eye grabber that contrast hard with the blue.
And then of course in his jurassic world review he talked about the cgi looking bad and all he said was "its just bad" and didn't, or couldnt go into why it looked bad. And it's easy, since modern movies like Jurassic World color grade their films by removing orange (for some reason) it makes textures look bad because its dark and dull colors on cool and dull colors. Orange was needed to give it contrast and spacial awareness and its why the t-rex in the first film looked great. Also for those who took art and photography, you know they violated the rule of 3 in color theory. add that with texture being over produced and cgi layered on cgi and practicals you get cgi that does not and will not mix with live action.
And thats not something you need a class in CG to learn. i spent only a few minutes doing research and since i have a minor in film, i tend to study each scene and how its shot and colored.
(Its also why Dave back in the Hobbit 3 review said Mad Max looked like it had color. He was right, by enhancing reds and orange in mad max it allowed objects to have more contrast and depth and not blend into each other.)
Also since people tend to cop out and not use boom mics, which can be bought for 30 bucks on amazon and learn how to edit and key sound a lot of the audio comes off as boring, lacking shape or interesting dynamics to it.
I think the real issue though is the inability to learn these relatively simple skills or get the assistance of people who do. And the game show Pop Quiz Hot Shot really showed their limits.
in terms of actual script, all i'll say is this, the writer to rick and morty said "If it doesnt make you laugh, then it wont make the audience laugh" and im not sure if these people are able to laugh at their own jokes, because most of them seemed forced and lacking any flow.
Lets get someone who can talk about the actual craft, point out subtle details, explain cool ways how a shot was done, ect I know those people exist because those people, like Brad, are making movies that can appropriately utilize that knowledge. I saw the Snob movie, and aside from budget limitations it was done very well. Brad was able to use what he had and made something that with the most minor of tweaks they couldnt help, i could see on tv like the indy channel or something.
And i know the technical talk isnt Brad shtick and i dont want him to change what he does, but Red Letter Media isnt the only review group with skills and education in the technology and craft. It doesnt even need money to be talked about to be honest.
Just a touch of effort and research.
Fuck i typed a bit more than intended.
That explains why a lot of "reviewers" on YouTube (be it about media or random products) strike me as hit-or-miss. I've had to quit watching several review videos because of that lack of polishedness (no charisma or wit, sounding bored or not talking clearly, having obnoxious smoke detectors going off in the background). Needless to say, once I'm irritated with one video from a certain person, I don't bother going back to try another. Oddly enough, Irate Gamer doesn't bother me as much as a dimwitted mouthbreather behind a camera who's blowing unfunny crap out of his/her ass.
Very well said. I think you're dead on about how the simplicity of reviewing does not mean everyone is capable of doing it. Everyone watches tv and movies but fewer people have the ability to articulate and understand the craft behind it.
... There being a porn version of Mockingbird makes sense, for something I never thought about before. The redneck's daughter comes on to the black man (I forget the names) and this time around, she succeeds.
"To Drill A Mockingbird". Even has a ready-to-go porn title.
They seem like they are enjoying making the show, but the performances unfortunately come off as really forced and the premise kind of uninteresting. I'd be more interested in a deconstruction of why TV shows tend to get more ridiculous or not work than the broad brushing generalizing they're giving.
The closest it got to succeeding was when they began to talk about how the spin off didn't work, but specifics were minimal, leaving me really disappointed. So much time could have been spent talking about what makes good reality shows tick, or why they think the spinoff got renewed, despite its mediocrity.
In addition, heavy criticism is not a problem, especially on things you like. I feel like so much of the criticism in this video was either hand waved away with a forced smile and suggestion that maybe it could be better, or brushed past in a rush to get to the "jumped the shark" moment. I understand if you like the show, but as a critic, you owe it to your audience to be frank and forward about the parts that don't work, and most importantly, why. If I feel like you're just telling me the good parts, because you're a fan and that's all you care about, then I'm not going to trust your criticism in the future.
Addressing the creators directly, don't let the spotlight of being put on the site cloud your improvement. Keep building upon, evolving, and refining your show, lest you become just another webcam review show that cranks the same thing out week after week. Take some time and put in the extra effort, even if it means missing your current deadlines. It will pay off in the long run and people will appreciate the work and research you put in, leading to a larger fanbase and a stronger catalog of work.
Glad to see you spotlighting something new. Love the premise and can't wait to see how the show grows. The hosts weren't that funny but I'm sure they'll get better overtime. And its just fun to hear them talk about the show.
Consider me subscribed
Whens the Dexter review?