Is his grift really that profitable? - The Critical Drinker (2012) Discussion

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

Yes it is.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1002) 7 months ago

Sad when stuff like this brings in the bucks. Also quite telling how he actually purposely lied about his review of Knives Out Glass Onion. I can see that his audience lots of times does not even watch the movies he reviews. They just parrot his talking points. If you want evidence of him lying here is the video exposing that lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-5uSY1_b80

reply

[–] fc31 (4849) 7 months ago

I can see this account is created just to troll him.

You don't have the guts to use your main account, do you?

reply

[–] CMX (245) 7 months ago

That account does the same thing that you claim Drinker does, just from a different angle. I guess you're ok with grifting as long as you happen to agree with them.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

Why do you think he’s grifting? You don’t think there are people that genuinely have a problem with modern Hollywood and want to share their thoughts? Especially when all the mainstream critics seemed to have sold out to Hollywood?

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

Because his tastes are incredibly shallow, and he's very ignorant about modern TV/film.

Ranting about that Canadian Network TV show "Robyn Hood" bait show instead of watching, and recommending, say, Severance is a peak example of this.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

He’s covered other lesser shows and movies, feel free to check his videos at your leisure.

Many of his videos cover mainstream stuff for a reason: he’s a critic as well as an entertainer, and he does it for a living. It’s not rocket science.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

What "lesser shows and movies" has he covered?

>Many of his videos cover mainstream stuff for a reason: he’s a critic as well as an entertainer, and he does it for a living. It’s not rocket science.

He ignores tons of "mainstream stuff". He orbits Disney and franchise media. Lets look at TV. This is what I said in the adjacent thread below:

In the last 6 months the Criticaldrinker has reviewed:

Robyn Hood (talk about low hanging bait), Saw X, The Creator, Expendables, One Piece, Ahsoka, Blue Beetle, Snow White, Gran Turismo, Witcher, Oppenheimer, Barbie, Mission: Impossible, Sound of Freedom, Indiana Jones, Extraction 2, The Flash, The Covenant, The Menu, Across the Spiderverse, The Little Mermaid, Fast X, Queen Cleopatra, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, Boiling Point, Peter Pan and Wendy, The Mandalorian, Super Mario Bros., Dungeons & Dragons, John Wick, Shazam: Fury of the Gods

The majority of the reviews here fall into Marvel/Superhero stuff (Spiderverse, Blue Beetle, Guardians of the Galaxy), Franchise (Barbie, Snow White, Peter Pan & Wendy), Generic Action Schlock (Expendables, Mission: Impossible) and Star Wars (Ahsoka, Mandalorian).

Here are some shows TheCriticalDrinker doesn't seem to be aware of: Warrior, Severance, Silo, Babylon Berlin, Pachinko, The Peripheral (unfortunately cancelled), Dopesick, Slow Horses, Station Eleven, The Bear, Black Bird, Devs. He has never, to my knowledge, ever watched ANY prestige styled TV show (Succession, BCS) either.

Does he just not have Apple TV?

Also it doesn't seem he's ever watched Dark, Black Sails, Mr. Robot, Altered Carbon (S01 was great). No record of Raised by Wolves (this guy like sci-fi or not?) or Foundation (which would probably at least partially annoy him, but it's still sci-fi). A quick search reveals he did watch The Expanse, so this stuff really should be on his radar.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

You said he ignores mainstream stuff before listing a bunch of mainstream stuff he’s gone over. If you have the time to list all that, you have the time to go over more of his videos. Not everything he does is mainstream, nor is he expected to always cover something nobody’s heard of.

What do you want from him? If you’re not satisfied with his content, simply move on and ignore him, as well as any posts about him.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>You said he ignores mainstream stuff before listing a bunch of mainstream stuff he’s gone over

What examples did I list there that he's gone over there?

>What do you want from him? If you’re not satisfied with his content, simply move on and ignore him, as well as any posts about him.

My point is that he gives a misleading impression about modern media.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

Look at your list, you made it.

I’ve seen plenty of modern media, we all have. His take is quite accurate, the only difference is that he has a platform to talk about it. There’s lesser mainstream stuff that’s pretty good, nobody’s denying that, it’s the mainstream stuff we grew up with that’s been changed for no good reason that people want to talk about.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>Look at your list, you made it.

I listed tons of shows there that he has ignored.

>I’ve seen plenty of modern media, we all have. His take is quite accurate, the only difference is that he has a platform to talk about it. There’s lesser mainstream stuff that’s pretty good, nobody’s denying that, it’s the mainstream stuff we grew up with that’s been changed for no good reason that people want to point out.

His take is not remotely accurate, especially for TV. 75% of his TV exposure is literally the MCU and Star Wars. It's pathetic.

And no, there's tons of high quality mainstream content: Severance, Succession, Silo, Warrior, Devs, Chernobyl, House of the Dragon, Dark, The Expanse, Black Sails, The Last of Us, One Piece, Better Call Saul, For All Mankind, Ozark, Arcane, Altered Carbon, Unorthodox, Dahmer, Barry, Black Bird, His Dark Materials, Reacher, The Morning Show, The Offer, Extraordinary, The Queen's Gambit, Fall of the House of Usher, Pachinko, The Bear, Station Eleven, Yellowjackets, Mr. Robot, Maid, What We Do in the Shadows, When They See Us, Mare of Easttown, Beef, Money Heist, Dopesick, Slow Horses just to name some.

Yet of all of them, the only ones I know Critical has watched is HOTD, TLOU, The Expanse, Chernobyl and One Piece.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

If it’s pathetic to you, then why not just move on and ignore him? I don’t mind discussing with you, you’ve been quite mature and respectful, if not a little naive at times, but when you make your shtick about telling others to move on, you really should follow your own advice.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

I mean I just answered how it seems like he's grifting, and this is why - because he portrays a misleading image of modern TV and film (especially modern TV).

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

That’s not what grifting means though. His library might seem limited to you, but that doesn’t prove he’s insincere about what he says.

Whatever his reviews don’t focus on, he’s either mentioned it in passing in those reviews or in his After Hours. Since this is his job now, he might have to be more picky with which will get more views, but he’s still gone out of his way to talk about other stuff.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>That’s not what grifting means though. His library might seem limited to you, but that doesn’t prove he’s insincere about what he says.

I do think his decision to review Robyn Hood at all is an example of insincerity, and playing to his audience.

>Whatever his reviews don’t focus on, he’s either mentioned it in passing in those reviews or in his After Hours. Since this is his job now, he might have to be more picky with which will get more views, but he’s still gone out of his way to all about other stuff.

Many of the shows I've referred to aren't new, but older (think 2016-20). And at the same time, many of them are actually pretty big.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

I personally don’t see an issue with him reviewing Robyn Hood. It’s another example of his culture getting vandalized for modern clout. I know I wouldn’t like it if my culture was similarly vandalized.

I also don’t see an issue with him not making a video of every single thing that’s out. He’s one guy after all. There’s other people that can cover them. Even then, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t watch them, it just means he’d rather make a vid about something else. If that’s not for you, you can always move on.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>I personally don’t see an issue with him reviewing Robyn Hood. It’s another example of his culture getting vandalized for modern clout. I know I wouldn’t like it if my culture was similarly vandalized.

It's a low budget Canadian network TV show lmao. Oh, won't someone please think of the sanctity and prestige of *Robin Hood* lmao. It's not mainstream. He clearly does go out of his way to find lesser-known stuff if he can dump on it, and that's what people mean when he grifts.

>I also don’t see an issue with him not making a video of every single thing that’s out. He’s one guy after all. There’s other people that can cover them. Even then, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t watch them, it just means he’d rather make a vid about something else. If that’s not for you, you can always move on.

I did not say that he should review all of them, but that he hasn't watched most of them is telling to how out of touch he is to modern TV. And many of the TV shows I've listed are absolutely things he should be somewhat interested in.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

So when you find example of him reviewing something not mainstream, you still criticize? lol. It might not mean anything to you, but at least try to empathize for those where it does mean something.

Again, just because he doesn’t devote an entire video to it, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t watch it. He’s mentioned a lot of movies and shows he liked or didn’t like, including ones you brought up.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>So when you find example of him reviewing something not mainstream, you still criticize?

You have completely missed my point. He is reviewing it because it fits the narrative he wants to build. He's not being honest about modern media.

>It might not mean anything to you, but at least try to empathize for those where it does mean something.

Lmao, Robin Hood purists? Dear me. It's a spin on it. A shitty one, but a spin all the same. Should British people also be upset that there's a Japanese "Ms. Sherlock" TV show?

>Again, just because he doesn’t devote an entire video to it, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t watch it. He’s mentioned a lot of movies and shows he liked or didn’t like, including ones you brought up.

What ones did I bring up that he's mentioned? And note, I specifically took to his Twitter to see if he had ever referenced many of them - and he had not.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

I don’t remember, dude, not off the top of my head. You seem to spend a lot of time focusing on someone you don’t like, so maybe go over all his hours upon hours of “After Hours” vids, that’s where I saw him mention them.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 7 months ago

the issue isnt specifically robyn hood, its the trend we see and what it represents that people been criticizing and how its one of many doing this. its symptomatic of a trend. which is "do not focus on telling a good story, focus on representation, diversity, race or sex swap swapping and lecturing your audience with a hamfisted message". Anyone who criticized this people would just scream"racist! sexist!' at them. the problem is its become soooo transparent and the story quality has been sacrificed so much that plenty of completely non biased, non right wing reviewers have took notice.

wWs Robyn hood low hanging fruit? sure. but it perfectly represents the culmination of this issue all boiled down into one clear target. and done so ineptly and to such an extreme that it exposes this.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>the issue isnt specifically robyn hood, its the trend we see and what it represents that people been criticizing and how its one of many doing this. its symptomatic of a trend. which is "do not focus on telling a good story, focus on representation, diversity, race or sex swap swapping and lecturing your audience with a hamfisted message".

>wWs Robyn hood low hanging fruit? sure. but it perfectly represents the culmination of this issue all boiled down into one clear target. and done so ineptly and to such an extreme that it exposes this.

And this is my point - he has an agenda, and he ignores scores of high quality prestige and sci-fi TV that he should like in order to push it.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 7 months ago

a large part of his brand has been pessimism, skepticism, anger and pointing out problems with modern film like red letter media. Hi brand was never jsut to keep covering stuff he loved and solely look at that. like him Red letter media rose at a time of the height of channels like Screen junkies. people grew tired of channels like this fake manufactured hype and excitement to shill for access. they wanted the cold hard truth and a more objective look. there was an excess of praising and simping, and a lack of criticism that they stepped up to film.

Its not as if Critical hadnt been calling this stuff out before or what it represents its on brand for him. Reviewers just like fans want better media and feel the only way we will get this and end this wave of garbage is to call out for what it is. if the defenders they can just constantly scream "sexism", then there will be no need to improve. if you do not have these voices then they can just say ghostbusters 2016 and Robyn hood werent actually bad! it was just toxic, incel, right wing, sexist haters! do not veer away from these! make more!

As i said robyn hood was a case so atrocious, so aggressive and a pure distillation of this it offered a perfect example to call out that was undefendable even for the most staunch defenders and screamers of "incel". its 100% on brand and consistent with Critical Drinkers history to pick this and tear it apart and expose it and show how it is "everything wrong with modern storytelling".

he literally has a playlist about "Why Modern Movies Suck " which its first video is from 2 years ago.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>Its not as if Critical hadnt been calling this stuff out before or what it represents its on brand for him. Reviewers just like fans want better media and feel the only way we will get this and end this wave of garbage is to call out for what it is. if the defenders they can just constantly scream "sexism", then there will be no need to improve. if you do not have these voices then they can just say ghostbusters 2016 and Robyn hood werent actually bad! it was just toxic, incel, right wing, sexist haters! do not veer away from these! make more!

Or you could... just watch the many good examples of media out there that Critical barely ever addresses.

>Its not as if Critical hadnt been calling this stuff out before or what it represents its on brand for him. Reviewers just like fans want better media and feel the only way we will get this and end this wave of garbage is to call out for what it is. if the defenders they can just constantly scream "sexism", then there will be no need to improve. if you do not have these voices then they can just say ghostbusters 2016 and Robyn hood werent actually bad! it was just toxic, incel, right wing, sexist haters! do not veer away from these! make more!

Why do you care if they improve or not? And no-one defended Robyn Hood or Velma or that Cleopatra "docudrama". They were universally slated.

>As i said robyn hood was a case so atrocious, so aggressive and a pure distillation of this it offered a perfect example to call out that was undefendable even for the most staunch defenders and screamers of "incel". its 100% on brand and consistent with Critical Drinkers history to pick this and tear it apart and expose it and show how it is "everything wrong with modern storytelling".

You mean "everything wrong with modern storytelling in the cherrypicked examples of mine." And watching MCU blockbusters and using them to complain about film is genuinely like someone complaining about new music who only listens to chart music.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 7 months ago

Or you could... just watch the many good examples of media out there that Critical barely ever addresses.

i answered this already. there was and is plenty of big studio shills out there. its an overcrowded market. his brand has always been pessimistic film analysis and criticism. while he does occasionally cover some things he loves. his first movie review was from 5 years ago on Ghostbusters 2016. even from day 1 it was to critically tear apart things the shills defended. if every youtube reviewer just praised and watched waht they loved there would be not criticism, which we need as well. thats his angle and brand. sorry he isnt doing what you want?

Why do you care if they improve or not? And no-one defended Robyn Hood or Velma or that Cleopatra "docudrama". They were universally slated.

i hope this was simply a misunderstanding due to my wording. i dont care that Robyn hood or Velma season 2 improves. i care that hollywood improves. that they realize their mistakes. and how do they do this? by having people like criticial drinker! not simply abunch of echo chambers of reviewers all praising what they like. but actually offering critical analysis of stuff they do not like.

as i said before, like Robyn Hood, both the other ones you mentioned were also so offer the top and in your face and perfect distillations of the issue it was undeniable. its good to point and analyze and criticize these hamfisted examples, so that more competent less obvious ones cant skate under the radar and get a pass, and the defenders go back to screaming "see sexism!". even with junk like Hood they are still calling people racist. and when i say competent i dont mean higher quality and learned from their mistakes, i just mean less obvious in their hamfistedness of the things i mentioned before.

You mean "everything wrong with modern storytelling in the cherrypicked examples of mine." And watching MCU blockbusters and using them to complain about film is genuinely like someone complaining about new music who only listens to chart music.

yes he has to pick examples to demonstrate what is happening. wheres the problem? these individual cherry picked examples are specific, but point to the general overall trend.its udneniable the things he covered in those videos arent simply a one off, hollywood is moving more towards those in many films

no no it isnt. no offense but you dont seem to know how to do logical comparisons.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>i answered this already. there was and is plenty of big studio shills out there. its an overcrowded market. his brand has always been pessimistic film analysis and criticism. while he does occasionally cover some things he loves. his first movie review was from 5 years ago on Ghostbusters 2016. even from day 1 it was to critically tear apart things the shills defended. if every youtube reviewer just praised and watched waht they loved there would be not criticism, which we need as well. thats his angle and brand. sorry he isnt doing what you want?

He has actually recommended some films and TV shows though. He's watched The Expanse, but bafflingly doesn't seem interested in Foundation, or Raised by Wolves.

>i hope this was simply a misunderstanding due to my wording. i dont care that Robyn hood or Velma season 2 improves. i care that hollywood improves. that they realize their mistakes. and how do they do this? by having people like criticial drinker! not simply abunch of echo chambers of reviewers all praising what they like. but actually offering critical analysis of stuff they do not like.

Modern TV is fine. Film, less so (although there are many good films out there) - although mostly because TV has eaten into what it used to do.

>yes he has to pick examples to demonstrate what is happening. wheres the problem? these individual cherry picked examples are specific, but point to the general overall trend.its udneniable the things he covered in those videos arent simply a one off, hollywood is moving more towards those in many films

It's not an "overall trend" unless your exposure to modern media is the MCU and Star Wars and franchise remakes.

Films are declining for many other reasons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQF82Kj-v0E&t=3756s.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) 7 months ago

He has actually recommended some films and TV shows though.

which i literaly said.. and yet his brand is still mostly criticism. again i am sorry you do not like that. i am sorry he doesnt do what YOU want him to do. but thats his brand and theres enough other optimistic praising channels to watch. a mix of these types of channels is important and healthy

Modern TV is fine. Film, less so (although there are many good films out there) - although mostly because TV has eaten into what it used to do.

okay and? how did you miss the mark so stunningly? this isnt about shows being fine or not. its about story and character criticism apply to both. i dont know why i need to explain this to you 5 times? you seem to take things i say and twist them off topic like you did here. the point was never television show critism, or even THESE specific shows. it points to broader issues in film (tv) making. in his case he chose robyn. its like hyperbole but in critical analysis form. hyperbole exists for a reason.and robyn hood was emblematic and its problems applicable to tv and movies, due to it being about fundamental story telling, character development, entertainment etc. or in this case sacrificing those for "diversity! representation! "modern twist!" etc etc

It's not an "overall trend" unless your exposure to modern media is the MCU and Star Wars and franchise remakes.

Films are declining for many other reasons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQF82Kj-v0E&t=3756s.

your video never showed where i was wrong in the slightest it was a completely different topic. what i did watch of your link it seems you are goalpost shifting. i was very very very clearly making an argument from film declining in terms of story telling and characters, something i pointed to Critical drinker arguing.. this was talking about decline in terms of the competition between streaming and movie theatres... something i literally never brought up, never argued or never talked about.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>okay and? how did you miss the mark so stunningly? this isnt about shows being fine or not. its about story and character criticism apply to both. i dont know why i need to explain this to you 5 times? you seem to take things i say and twist them off topic like you did here. the point was never television show critism, or even THESE specific shows. it points to broader issues in film (tv) making. in his case he chose robyn. its like hyperbole but in critical analysis form. hyperbole exists for a reason.and robyn hood was emblematic and its problems applicable to tv and movies, due to it being about fundamental story telling, character development, entertainment etc. or in this case sacrificing those for "diversity! representation! "modern twist!" etc etc

I think the problem is that it's rooted in a strawman. That there are supposedly "problems applicable to tv and movies". Most TV is fine. I can speak confidently that The Critical Drinker completely misrepresents the modern TV landscape and knows very little about what is on offer. The "issues" he speaks of are mostly Disney issues, rather than TV-at-large.

>your video never showed where i was wrong in the slightest it was a completely different topic. what i did watch of your link it seems you are goalpost shifting. i was very very very clearly making an argument from film declining in terms of story telling and characters, something i pointed to Critical drinker arguing.. this was talking about decline in terms of the competition between streaming and movie theatres...

It's noting why film has lost so much prestige and cultural relevance and has deteriorated into a sea of endless rehashes, franchises and sensation with shit writing. I think streaming services and the rise of TV has destroyed it.

I don't think 'wokeness' has much to do with it.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

You didn't give any reasons here for believing he's a grifter. Accusing him of doing his channel as a grift implies he's somehow dishonest and insincere.

All you did is tell us that you don't like his opinions or the subjects he picks for his videos.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>You didn't give any reasons here for believing he's a grifter. Accusing him of doing his channel as a grift implies he's somehow dishonest and insincere.

I think his decision to review, for instance, Robyn Hood is indicative of a grifting mentality. Robyn Hood is a low-budget Canadian network TV show. It's not a big hitter by any means. He chose to review it because it fits his narrative about modern media. That is the very definition of grifting. The Critical Drinker more-or-less only reviews highly mainstream and well known content, but when it comes something that he can clown on he'll make an exception.

There's tons of modern TV shows that he seems fantastically ignorant about, and yet should like.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1002) 7 months ago

This goes both ways. Are there critics who can genuinely enjoy something you or others do not? Or is it that anytime a critic disagrees with your view they are grifting? I do think there are people who genuinely disagree with Hollywood and want to share their thoughts. I never said that was not the case. I however do think people such as him take advantage of the outrage and ignorance of audiences and know how to cater to their audience. He purposely lied in his review of Glass Onion. The video I posted earlier proves this.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

How did he lie? I’m genuinely curious.

There’s that now infamous podcast where critics admitted they skew their reviews for early access. Are their critics that genuinely like current Hollywood? Sure. Are many critics giving insincere scores for clout? Yes, as it turns out.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1002) 7 months ago

Watch the video I provided. The entire video points out many lies. One is how he misrepresented the scene with Dave Batista. If you do not want to watch the entire video go to time stamp 22:06 to 23:25 in the video.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

I’ve added to the list, so I’ll watch it and get back to you.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1002) 7 months ago

That video as well as other things paint him in a different light for me.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

Ok, so I watched the time-stamp of the video, and the Drinker was right. The first time we saw that scene, nobody was there. The second time that scene is shown, characters were retconned into it. How was the audience supposed to pick up on the clues to solve the mystery if clues were omitted? That's not fair, that's cheating. I came to that conclusion myself, long before I watched the Drinker's review. He didn't lie, that's exactly what happened, the proof is in the video. His criticism is completely valid.

If that section is any indication of how the rest of the video is, then the YouTuber "Pillar of Garbage" is just coming up with cope after cope to defend a poorly-written movie. Knives Out did a better job, while Glass Onion is just a bad movie, plain and simple.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1002) 7 months ago

No because he played the clip on mute. Ever wonder why? He did that because there is a snap sound which is what caused him to look back. You are shown him after she left the scene. So I disagree on that front. Also even if what you said was true it isn't but retcons aren't necessarily cheating. If so any retcons is by default is a cheat.

I agree on knives out being better. However Glass onion a bad movie according to who you?

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

Playing the clip on mute had no bearing on the point he was making, the characters weren't there before, and then they were. It was a retcon, and yes, that was cheating. Since Drinker needs his videos monetized, it's not a surprise that he mutes his clips. YouTube is very anal about copyrights, even when it doesn't make sense.

It's a bad movie because the final twist was super predictable, and it omits clues only to retcon them in later, Rian Johnson got lazy and didn't even try to write a compelling mystery. One of the biggest sins it committed as a mystery movie was using the secret twin trope. You don't need to be a professional writer to know that's one of the things you DON'T put in your story. Good mysteries give you all the clues throughout the story in the appropriate order, so that the audience confirm for themselves on repeat viewings. That way the twist feels earned. This movie didn't do that, so it failed as a mystery story. As Daniel Craig said, "It's just dumb!" Though that was putting it kindly.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1002) 7 months ago

I disagree with that. I believe it is to misrepresent the scene. It was showing the scene from a different angle. In tons of his other videos he plays the clips with sound. I do not view that as cheating. Either way it actually does not contradict the scene. Because the reason you hear the snap is why he looks back then after that is where she is not in the frame. Can you dislike it? Yep but some retcons actually are good.

Something being predictable does not make the movie bad. Some people are better at figuring out twists than others are. Also the Prestige says hi. That movie utilizes the twin trope and it is a well regarded film by the masses. Anyways I do not want to be disrespectful but I do not agree with you at all on this. I found Glass Onion to be an awesome film not as good as the first but I still loved it. Your opinion on it being bad is simply your opinion. In my book the film is well done.

Even if you step away from this though it is obvious what he is doing. He covers low hanging fruit as a means to capitalize on that needed money. Many of these channels and grifters would not care whatsoever about a film like Barbie but since they can ride the wave of outrage to fame suddenly they pretend to have a vested interest in the property. No one is forcing anyone to watch something they dislike. If you do not like that in your movies then simple do not watch it. I do not torture myself watching movies I have no vested interest in and then proceed to complain that they are poorly done. There are many forms of entertainment out there. Broaden your tastes. You can find what you are looking for outside of the usual properties you watch. As opposed to Star Wars I watch Blade Runner or Dune as opposed to Marvel I watch the Boys. Problem solved.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

Like I said, YouTube is anal about copyrights, even if it doesn’t make sense. And I’ll say again, playing the clip on mute didn’t matter; in the first scene before the plant snapped, nobody was there. In the second scene before the plant snapped, there people were there. That’s cheating. We can disagree about whether the movie was good, but that was still cheating.

The Prestige is the only movie I know of where they handled the twin thing pretty well: from Christian Bale’s assistant’s face being obscured, to the wife saying he acts different sometimes, to Hugh Jackman needing a body double for the door trick. It’s still not something writers should include, though, and I personally didn’t care for it.

I have yet to see proof that Drinker is a grifter, I’ve seen enough videos of his to see that he means what he says. Just because you don’t like his takes or the character he plays, that doesn’t make him a grifter.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1002) 7 months ago

And like I mentioned earlier he has videos where the sound is intact. The clip being played without sound alters the view of what actually happened. I do not view that as cheating. Plenty of films do this to where they show the scene from a different angle or do a retcon. I take no issue with it.

It is your view that writers should not include it. The Prestige garnered strong reception by the masses as I said. So we disagree here. Movies do not follow guidelines by one specific person. This is an issue you have, you do not speak for everyone else.

I do not think you want to see him as a grifter. You agree with him therefore you want to look past it. I watch plenty of youtubers where I do not agree with their takes but I do not seem them as grifters. Prime example is Your movie sucks. He has lots of takes I do not agree with but I do not view him as a grifter. Drinker is covering Robin Hood that is not low hanging fruit? Do you honestly believe some of his audience has a vested interest in some of these properties? I get Star Wars, even some of Marvel. However stuff like Barbie, Blue Beetle they had no interest in. They just saw it as a target they could latch onto in order to get viewers.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

I'll say yet again, muting the sound didn't matter. I don't know why you or the YouTuber are so obsessed with that detail, it literally has no effect on the point Drinker was making. That scene was shown at the same angle both times. It. Was. Cheating.

I've disagreed with the Drinker many times, he's still not a grifter. You need to look up what that word means before you throw it around. You can disagree with him over this movie, that doesn't make him a grifter no many how badly you, or the YouTuber, want him to be. Why do you want him to be a grifter so badly? He didn't lie, I saw the movie for myself, it happened exactly the way Drinker described it. Just don't watch him if you don't like him.

It's not my view to not include bad writing, it's literally Writing 101, the standards set by professional and successful writers. Including a twin sibling with no build-up is just one of the more famous examples. Prestige might have been an exception, but it was a flop, so I wouldn't use that as a defensive argument.

Also, what's so bad about him reviewing movies and shows that aren't mainstream? It's funny because we have Skavau here berating him for supposedly only going after Disney and superheroes, yet you and Skavau have both proven he doesn't do that. But since that disproves your arguments, you call it "low-hanging fruit" to cover it up. He likes to cover other stuff too, so what? If it doesn't matter to you, don't watch it. His audience likes to see an angry character rip on bad shows, no matter how popular or un-popular it is. That's been a thing since Angry Video Game Nerd, who made a career on criticizing "low-hanging fruit".

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1002) 7 months ago

I disagree I believe it did. It was a convenient way to make people think there was no clue as that happening beforehand. I also do not view that as cheating.

I know fully well what grifting is. I do not want him to be a grifter, I just can see that he is. What difference to me does it make whether he is or isn't? I hold no ill will or harsh feelings towards him I just do not like that practice. To me it is toxic. You act as if I have any benefit to if he is a grifter or not. He makes good money doing it obviously. I do not regularly watch him anymore really. See this is it though. Notice you can complain all day about how you hate Disney or Marvel stuff and if someone tells you well do not watch it then you will quickly go well I can voice my opinion. Same applies to me. I can voice my opinion on his content. Just because I voice it does it mean I am frequently watching him. I watched a lot back a while ago now I catch it on occasion but not all the time.

No that is something you have set. Show me the golden tablet rule book of writing that says you have to follow what you just said. The Prestige also was not a flop. The budget of it was 40 million dollars so lets double that for production cost which I sincerely doubt it cost 40 million to market that but we will play devil's advocate. That makes it 80 million. It made 109 million. So that is a 29 million dollar profit. Scott Pilgrim vs the world would be what you would consider a flop since it did not even break even and lost money. Learn what a flop actually is before throwing that out. Second even if it was a flop that proves nothing. Plenty of the greatest films of all time were box office flops. The King of Comedy, Children of Men, It is a Wonderful Life among many more. The reception by the masses of people show The Prestige to be a well received film. So you saying it being a flop disqualifies it was untrue and ignorant. We are talking about quality film not money.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1002) 7 months ago

Skavau said mostly. He did not say only. Convenient of you to ignore that. I never said he could not review whatever he wanted. I just know that he picks what his audience wants to see to get that traffic. Again I can voice my opinion on his channel and content. Just like you guys can complain about what you do not like in Hollywood films. I can throw that right back at you. If you dislike what is happening in Hollywood simply quit watching, no one is forcing you to watch these films.

AVGN's content was built off of tearing down bad games. Drinker is doing it for political reasons. He knows what his audience's general ideology is. So he caters to them. His audience wants to see any political ideology they disagree with torn down, and he provides that. World of difference between the two of them. Am I saying he can't do it? No, the guy obviously makes a killing on it. I just do not like that type of energy and the people he associates with carry that same energy. It is no shock he is rubbing elbows with folks like Nerdrotic, Babyface and many others.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

I didn't ignore anything. Stop focusing on semantics.

I know what a flop is. I went back and researched Prestige, at a $40 million budget, it needed to gross 2.5 times that to make profit, which is $100 million. It made $109 million, turns out it barely made a profit, so there, it didn't flop. I can admit when I'm wrong. However, your argument sounded like "well a bunch of people loved it, therefore the twin twist was good!" I countered by saying not many people watched it, so that's not a good argument. Even then, ad populum arguments are invalid arguments. It handled the secret twin twist decently enough, but it's the exception.

With that said, I didn't set any standard, that's literally what the standards are. You need good writing to make any movie work. For mystery movies, you need to give all the clues in proper order, not cheat and retcon them into previous scenes. Glass Onion cheated, and it's just a bad film overall as I stated before. If you still like it despite that, that's fine.

I don't care if you don't like or agree with Drinker, that's your choice. People keep saying "don't like those movies? Don't watch them". I'm just throwing their logic back at them: Don't like Drinker? Don't watch him.
But he's not a grifter, and if you really knew what a grifter was, you wouldn't call him one. He also didn't lie about anything, the movie changed the scene. It doesn't matter if his clip was muted or not, even if he kept the sound on, the movie still changed the scene. I was mature enough to admit that I made a mistake calling Prestige a flop. Are you mature enough to admit you mistakenly called Drinker a grifter?

Neither he nor his peers are doing it for political reasons. Hollywood made it political in the first place by pandering to an audience that doesn't exist, and antagonizing their core audience by calling them names. People like Drinker are just calling them out on it. Nobody wants to deal the current-day politics in our movies, shows, and games. It's not like Star Wars, X-Men, or Game of Thrones where they are fictional worlds with there own politics that are actually relevant to the story. Hollywood wants to force their personal radical cringe opinions into stories we grew up with, and most people reject that. Drinker and the others reject that it too, that's all.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1002) 7 months ago

My argument was that the twist can work. When you pointed out how that is bad writing to have a twin I pointed out the Prestige because I find that to be an excellent film. I was also showing you that no you are the one who has that rule of not wanting a twin as a twist. Any story can work including the twin twist.

Standard is good writing but you implied that having a twin is bad writing. That is your opinion not a standard. You say Glass onion is bad but that is your opinion. In my opinion it is good. So when you are stating it is just a bad film that is according to you.

I never threw that logic at you. So you projected other people's views onto me. I will voice my opinion and watch whatever I please. Please do not project things onto me when I never told you to stop watching things you find issue with or to not voice your opinion. Why are you so hung up on me calling him a grifter? Do you honestly think he has no motivation at all in constantly pointing out politics in the movies he criticizes? He will have people amped up and ready to hate a movie before it even gets released. A woke movie is not bad by default. A movie that is poorly made is a bad movie plain and simple. Mad Max Fury Road is a feminist film. Turns out it was really well made. The Boys has wokeness in it as well, but it is well written. Ok even if you want me to call him a grifter you have to admit he loves outrage porn. That is what he is built off of. AVGN videos were not outrage porn. People found them hilarious no one got outraged politically.

Um I am calling complete bs on that. Did you watch HeelsvsBabyface's pronouns video? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LFcimOxc6LY Just a glimpse in case you missed his rant. So no with that video alone that proved your statement is untrue. Oh they are fine with politics so long as it caters to their politics. There are still good movies made today you just have to hunt for them.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

We'll just have to agree to disagree about whether Glass Onion is a good or bad movie.

The question is, why are YOU so hung up about Drinker's opinions and views? I'll follow that up with my first question to you: You don’t think there are people that genuinely have a problem with modern Hollywood and want to share their thoughts? Especially when all the mainstream critics seemed to have sold out to Hollywood? To me, it's no different than AVGN, it's "outrage porn" as you said, and like AVGN, he's also offering genuine criticism and analysis. Drinker didn't make it political, Hollywood did.

I've seen HeelsVsBabyface's video, in its full context. While his reaction in the clip might come off as overly-animated, he was exactly right, he said what most of us are feeling and thinking. It's stupid that we've gotten to the point where games feel the need to add pronouns. You'd think adding male and female options were enough. If a small group of people want to play the pronoun game in real life, fine, but don't put that shit in our games. We don't want it there.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>To me, it's no different than AVGN, it's "outrage porn" as you said, and like AVGN, he's also offering genuine criticism and analysis. Drinker didn't make it political, Hollywood did.

I think the main difference here is that the AVGN and Nostalgia Critic deliberately reviewed trash. They didn't review a bunch of awful games and films respectively and then used those examples as reasons for why video games or film were bad.

>I've seen HeelsVsBabyface's video, in its full context. While his reaction in the clip might come off as overly-animated, he was exactly right, he said what most of us are feeling and thinking. It's stupid that we've gotten to the point where games feel the need to add pronouns. You'd think adding male and female options were enough. If a small group of people want to play the pronoun game in real life, fine, but don't put that shit in our games. We don't want it there.

You can avoid it by... just not picking "they". It's that simple. Why does this matter at all? How does this impose on you?

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

You can avoid it by... just not picking "they". It's that simple. Why does this matter at all? How does this impose on you?

Why does it matter to you what gamers like and don't like? Again, I have no problem chatting with you, Skavau, but your "what does it matter" argument is a double-edged sword, and you keep cutting yourself with it.
Gamers have had to deal with accumulating wokeness in games, from black-washing, de-sexualing women, sexualizing men (the latter two wouldn't matter if they were treated equally), and now this.

If it wasn't a big deal, modding sites should let gamers mod it out, right? Did you hear about the pride-flag incident with the PS4 Spider-Man game? People didn't like the pride flags, but they shouldn't be a big deal, right? They're just flags, and they're only seen in portions of the game, you can easily miss them when swinging around. But regardless, gamers found them immersion-breaking and cringe, so when the PC port for Spider-Man released, gamers modded it out. What did the modding site do? Ban the mod, and the guy who made it. If it wasn't a big deal, why react so harshly? Over an optional mod, no less?

It's almost like it IS big deal.

I wouldn't be surprised if the modding sites prevented gamers from removing the pronouns option in Starfield too, if it hasn't happened already.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>Why does it matter to you what gamers like and don't like? Again, I have no problem chatting with you, Skavau, but your "what does it matter" argument is a double-edged sword, and you keep cutting yourself with it.
Gamers have had to deal with accumulating wokeness in games, from black-washing, de-sexualing women, sexualizing men (the latter two wouldn't matter if they were treated equally), and now this.

I fail to see how this bothers you. Just ignore the pronoun bit. It changes nothing about the game.

>If it wasn't a big deal, modding sites should let gamers mod it out, right? Did you hear about the pride-flag incident with the PS4 Spider-Man game? People didn't like the pride flags, but they shouldn't be a big deal, right? They're just flags, and they're only seen in portions of the game, you can easily miss them when swinging around. But regardless, gamers found them immersion-breaking and cringe, so when the PC port for Spider-Man released, gamers modded it out. What did the modding site do? Ban the mod, and the guy who made it. If it wasn't a big deal, why react so harshly? Over an optional mod, no less?

That's a different thing unrelated to the actual core game itself. I agree the modding site should not have removed the Spider-Man PS4 mod.

>I wouldn't be surprised if the modding sites prevented gamers from removing the pronouns option in Starfield too, if it hasn't happened already.

I don't understand this. You would be removing an OPTION in the menu screen.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

I say let the gamers do what they want. They own the game, the mods are optional, let them do with it what they will. After all, removing the option changes nothing about the game, right? It'll just give the gamers a little peace of mind.
I don't even play the game and I can still sympathize with them.

If it's not a big deal, this is the modding sites' chance to prove it. If they react the way they did with the Spider-Man pride flags, then we'd know that it is in fact, once again, a big deal.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>I say let the gamers do what they want. They own the game, the mods are optional, let them do with it what they will. After all, removing the option changes nothing about the game, right? It'll just give the gamers a little peace of mind.

I didn't say they couldn't. It's just doing it at all is honestly absurd to me in this case since adding a mod to change the menu is exactly the same as just not selecting the option.

>If it's not a big deal, this is the modding sites' chance to prove it. If they react the way they did with the Spider-Man pride flags, then we'd know that it is in fact, once again, a big deal.

I don't think the mods should've been removed, but they were still silly.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

Whether you think they're silly or not, it should be up to the gamers on what they want in their games, no matter how small a detail it might be. This isn't some isolated incident, these seemingly small details accumulated over time across movies, shows, books, and games, and they're understandably tired of it.

Removing the mods only shows the hypocrisy.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

I didn't say it shouldn't be up to the gamers, but acting as if an option you don't have to use is some kind of imposition you is genuinely laughable.

>This isn't some isolated incident, these seemingly small details accumulated over time across movies, shows, books, and games, and they're understandably tired of it.

Many of them have marvel/star wars brain worms and genuinely aren't that informed about modern media.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

It's not just Marvel and Disney, those are just the most famous examples of the rot in media.

We've all played and watched plenty of things not mentioned by Drinker and his peers, it's widespread. Some have less rot than others, hence why we don't complain as much, but it's everywhere.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>It's not just Marvel and Disney, those are just the most famous examples of the rot in media.

Modern media (TV, video games especially) has never been so diverse in narrative and genre. It's easily the best time to consume modern things.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

How is this the best time to consume things?

And what do you mean by "it has never been so diverse"? You've said that before. Are you saying it's not as diverse as people are claiming, or it's more diverse than ever? Diversity itself isn't bad, as long as it's not woke.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

There's a heap of high quality TV shows, video games and music around and its easier to access.

>And what do you mean by "it has never been so diverse"? You've said that before. Are you saying it's not as diverse as people are claiming, or it's more diverse than ever? Diversity itself isn't bad, as long as it's not woke.

I meant diverse in terms of settings and storylines, not as a nod to casting.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1002) 7 months ago

I never said there are not people out there who have an issue with Hollywood. I also did not say people can not share their thoughts. I am pointing out how he caters to a specific audience that loves to have their political ideology validated. AVGN's videos are not outrage porn. He was portraying a character that people found funny and entertaining. It did not become an us vs them mindset with the AVGN audience. That is what the Drinker's audience has turned into. Any hint of a left leaning ideology in a film and boom they circle it like a pack of hyenas. Us vs them is quite apparent. So no him and AVGN are worlds apart. I got news for you, Hollywood has always been liberal this is not some big secret. AVGN videos made people laugh not get outraged and adopt the us vs them mindset. I can tell Drinker's audience by the things they say. You can critique things without being political. Jeremy Jahns is a prime example of this. He built his audience off of being charismatic, quick witted and funny. Do I always agree with his takes. Nope. Do I call him a grifter? No.

Does the pronoun affect the gameplay in any way? If not then why does it matter if it is there? Who doesn't want it there? So the developers have to cater to you? How about you do not make a mountain out of a mole hill? I would not even known about that had I not seen his meltdown. Mainly because I do not play videogames much these days as I find them dull. As a game company you aim to cater to as big of an audience as you can. That is simple marketing. It is easy to ignore this and continue playing the game. No one is forcing you to choose that option.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

I've got new for you, Hollywood was not always liberal. If it was, they wouldn't be remaking classic successful stories for "modern audiences", aka liberals. It was only after Trump became president of America that Hollywood freaked out and decided to triple down on liberal politics. It was Hollywood that turned it into and "Us vs Them" mentality, not Drinker. If you didn't hate Trump, even if you weren't American, you were treated as one of "them", an enemy, racist, sexist, bigot, deplorable, etc.
Before Trump, Hollywood was largely neutral, with both right and left-wing movies balancing out the market.

I never said games have to cater to me specifically. Games should, however, appeal to their core audience. The people who are obsessed with pronouns are few in number, and don't care about games. They were the ones making mountains out of mole-hills, not HeelsVsBabyface. you remember Anita Sarkeesian? She was the one who over-reacted and said "Everything is racist, everything is sexist, everything is homophobic", which was a flat-out lie. Why did she care anyway? She never played video games, so why did they have to start catering to her? She could've just left games and gamers alone.

We're going in circles, so let's just call it a night. If you want to have the last word, go ahead.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>I never said games have to cater to me specifically. Games should, however, appeal to their core audience. The people who are obsessed with pronouns are few in number, and don't care about games.

An option of course that didn't remotely impact you in this case. You're complaining about something you don't have to use and doesn't impact you.

And Hollywood has always been more 'liberal' or progressive (which is the term you mean) in comparison to most politicians and much of the wider public. Most creative industries have always been overrepresented by progressive-types. Although I don't know what you're calling "right-wing" movies exactly.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

Why is it when woke people complain about representation in games that they'll never play, people listen; but when gamers complain, people respond with "what does it matter, it's literally no big deal"? How long will people move the goal-post? Why can't people tell the woke crowd "it doesn't remotely impact you in this case. You're complaining about something you don't have to use and doesn't impact you"?

I have yet to see evidence that Hollywood was always "liberal". Have film-makers made bold changes like casting diverse people in times where racism was still a thing, or having female protagonists in a male-dominant market? Yes. Does that make it liberal? No. Progressive, maybe, but that was never exclusively a liberal trait. In fact, liberalism and progressivism barely overlap. Conservatives never had a problem with diverse casts or female protagonists, they were the ones who pushed for equality after all.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>Why is it when woke people complain about representation in games that they'll never play, people listen; but when gamers complain, people respond with "what does it matter, it's literally no big deal"?

Why is this a big deal? You're demanding an option be taken away from others because you don't like it. This literally does not impact you.

>I have yet to see evidence that Hollywood was always "liberal". Have film-makers made bold changes like casting diverse people in times where racism was still a thing, or having female protagonists in a male-dominant market? Yes. Does that make it liberal? No. Progressive, maybe, but that was never exclusively a liberal trait.

Hollywood was always "progressive" for its time. That was the point.

>Conservatives never had a problem with diverse casts or female protagonists, they were the ones who pushed for equality after all.

Lmao, depends on the conservative dude.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

Why ask for it to be there if they're not even gonna play it? What's so bad about pointing out how dumb it is to be there in the first place? If you wanna tell someone they're making a big deal out of nothing, tell it to the woke crowd. They're literally the ones complaining over nothing. No one's forcing them to watch movies and shows or play games that don't appeal to them. Instead of demanding pointless changes, they could move on to something else.

As I said, being "progressive" isn't the same as being "liberal".

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>Why ask for it to be there if they're not even gonna play it?

Who "asked for it"? They just chose to do it. Does it impact you? Does it change the game at all if you ignore it? By all means, complain about wokism if it impacts the writing - but this is just silly.

>As I said, being "progressive" isn't the same as being "liberal".

I didn't say that it was. But it begs the question as to what your definition of 'conservative' is.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

Liberals asked for it. People like Anita Sarkeesian and Niel Druckman, journalists like Kotaku, and companies like Sweet Baby Inc, and whoever they claim to represent. If it's not a big deal, tell THEM that. Ask THEM why having a pronouns option in menus means so much to them. Tell THEM how silly that is.

The textbook definition of a conservative is someone favoring traditional values, but today it's anyone who wants well-written stories that teach universal lessons, and characters who prove themselves through merit instead of relying on nepotism. Apparently, that's a bad thing, I didn't make the rules.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>Liberals asked for it. People like Anita Sarkeesian and Niel Druckman, journalists like Kotaku, and companies like Sweet Baby Inc, and whoever they claim to represent. If it's not a big deal, tell THEM that. Ask THEM why having a pronouns option in menus means so much to them. Tell THEM how silly that is.

Because they want to use characters referred to as "they". Why does this bother you?

>The textbook definition of a conservative is someone favoring traditional values, but today it's anyone who wants well-written stories that teach universal lessons, and characters who prove themselves through merit instead of relying on nepotism. Apparently, that's a bad thing, I didn't make the rules.

So what are some examples of 'conservatism' in cinema and tv historically then?

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

Why does it bother them if characters don't refer to themselves as "they"? Why does that option need to be included?

Just a few examples of conservatism in cinema: Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, Star Wars (pre Disney), Marvel and DC movies (pre Disney and current era WB), Star Trek (pre JJ Abrams), Doctor Who (pre female Doctor), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Hercules and Xena, etc. There are plenty more, some big and some lesser known, but those are the big ones. Liberals went and changed all of them because, for whatever reason, they didn't like what those movies and shows stood for.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>Why does it bother them if characters don't refer to themselves as "they"? Why does that option need to be included?

They want their character, the one they're playing as to be called "they" by other characters. That's all.

>Just a few examples of conservatism in cinema: Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, Star Wars (pre Disney), Marvel and DC movies (pre Disney and current era WB), Star Trek (pre JJ Abrams), Doctor Who (pre female Doctor), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Hercules and Xena, etc. There are plenty more, some big and some lesser known, but those are the big ones. Liberals went and changed all of them because, for whatever reason, they didn't like what those movies and shows stood for.

Star Trek and Buffy are NOT regarded as "conservative" at all. "Traditional values" then literally included a lesbian relationship between leads and was very progressive for its time. Not sure what your argument for Star Wars either. I'm also completely unconvinced that JK Rowling would accept Harry Potter as "conservative" literature.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

Why do they want pixels to refer to them by preferred pronouns? How does that help them? Why does it matter to them what games say or do?

As I said, conservatives by and large don't care about lesbian relationships, in fact a lot of them likely watched gay porn in private. But those lesbians in Buffy weren't woke. Harry Potter wasn't woke either, and whether Rowling likes it or not, she's considered part of the alt-right ever since she said trans women aren't women.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>Why do they want pixels to refer to them by preferred pronouns? How does that help them? Why does it matter to them what games say or do?

What do you mean "how does it help them"? It's because they don't identify with "he" or "she" and would prefer "they". It's not that deep. Why do you fucking care?

>As I said, conservatives by and large don't care about lesbian relationships, in fact a lot of them likely watched gay porn in private. But those lesbians in Buffy weren't woke. Harry Potter wasn't woke either, and whether Rowling likes it or not, she's considered part of the alt-right ever since she said trans women aren't women.

I didn't say they were "woke", I said they weren't conservative.

And plenty of conservatives are hardline reactionaries and very much DO care about seeing too much homosexuality, and in some cases, any at all. And I don't care about Rowlings reputation - she is not a social conservative.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

Why do they fucking care about pronouns in video games? You should be asking them that instead of asking us why we care. They were the ones raising a fuss about it in the first place, and you seem to love asking people why they're raising a fuss over nothing.

I told you what being a "conservative" means today, whether it's the textbook definition or not. Buffy and Harry Potter are considered conservative products whether you like it or not. Having lesbians might make Buffy progressive, but it's still conservative.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>Why do they fucking care about pronouns in video games? You should be asking them that instead of asking us why we care.

Because they identify by those pronouns. Why do they need to justify themselves to you? If everyone was forced into "they" pronouns in the game, then I'd understand the annoyance. But they're not.

>I told you what being a "conservative" means today, whether it's the textbook definition or not. Buffy and Harry Potter are considered conservative products whether you like it or not.

[citation needed]

>Having lesbians might make Buffy progressive, but it's still conservative.

This is genuinely a nonsense statement.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

We're going in circles, Skavau, so let's just call it a night.

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1002) 7 months ago

No you are quite misinformed. Mad Max Fury Road was in 2015, Brokeback Mountain was in 2005, Boy's Don't Cry was in 1999. Did things kick up after Trump became president? Yes but it has been no secret that Hollywood has been liberal for a long time. Alien and Aliens are anti corporation and pro union. That is the message behind those films. So even if you said it was not as liberal back then it was far from neutral like you are claiming. I say this as a person who has disagreed with many things politically liberal.

This is a dumb argument as well. Why not cater to everyone? Most people are right handed should they only cater to cater to right handed people since left handed are the minority? Heelsvsbabyface is making mountains out of mole hills. She is dumb as well. Just because she did something on the opposite end does it make ok for what Heelsvsbabyface did.

We can agree to disagree. I wish no ill will.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

[deleted]

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>Also, what's so bad about him reviewing movies and shows that aren't mainstream? It's funny because we have Skavau here berating him for supposedly only going after Disney and superheroes, yet you and Skavau have both proven he doesn't do that.

I said he *mostly* does. Also include Star Wars in that. He mainly focuses on franchise movies, the MCU, Star Wars and the occasional high flyer on HBO and Netflix.

>His audience likes to see an angry character rip on bad shows, no matter how popular or un-popular it is. That's been a thing since Angry Video Game Nerd, who made a career on criticizing "low-hanging fruit".

The AVGN and co weren't pretending that the games they reviewed represented the games of their time.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

I would say he's grifting because no one can possibly spend years complaining of the same woke Hollywood thing over and over. There comes a time you just have to move on and talk about positive things. Guys like Drinker, Nerdrotic and their pals are too negative all the time for it to be nothing more than something to cause outrage and get views/donations.

reply

[–] Melton (2678) 7 months ago

No, you have to keep going, and praising quality films (which Drinker does) until Hollywood gets it, stops making insulting woke crap, and starts making good films again.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

He could broaden his horizons a bit

reply

[–] Melton (2678) 7 months ago

He’s doing a great job and is YouTube’s most popular film critic. How’s your career going?

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

Him having lots of viewers doesn't mean he has a diverse movie/tv palette. He mostly just reviews the MCU and Star Wars.

reply

[–] Melton (2678) 7 months ago

He’s doing a great job and is YouTube’s most popular film critic. How’s your career going?

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

I didn't say he wasn't successful. I was noting that he seems out of touch about modern media.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

Why not? RadLibs spent years complaining, over and over, about how our movies, shows, and games weren’t woke enough, until Hollywood and gaming studios changed. Why can't the reverse also be true?

Those guys are negative because a lot of the stuff we grew up with suck now, and RadLibs are acting like we're the bad guys or something. The guys you mentioned got their platforms because all the "professional" critics and journalists, who pretend to speak for the audience, keep shilling out to studios for throwing out crappy content.

reply

[–] Melton (2678) 7 months ago

The RadLibs are shitting themselves because someone is calling out their woke BS and Hollywood is starting to listen.

reply

[–] Corbell (9572) 7 months ago

I think it was Jordan, who said, the left can't admit that someone, ANYONE, who is criticizing them, is reasonable, becuase if they do, then that means the next step is actually looking at the criticism.

And they know at that point, their entire narrative just falls apart. Their ideas and actions can only be defended by shouting down all opposing voices.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

Is criticising someone an example of "shouting down all opposing voices?"

Because all I see here are people criticising him, nothing more.

reply

[–] Corbell (9572) 7 months ago

It can be. We live in an era of marginalizing those that dare to not conform to the Party Line, driving them from jobs, public life, arresting them, ect.

"Criticism" can easily blend into reputation destruction, which is a dangerous thing with the cancel mob ruling society.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

That's not criticism. I was referring to criticism. All people on here are doing is criticising the Critical Drinker

reply

[–] Corbell (9572) 7 months ago

Interesting that you state it as criticism of HIM, and not of his show. Make it personal, one of Saul Alinsky's rules, isnt it?

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

What a strawman. I meant criticism of his opinions, which he pens as "The Critical Drinker". I have no idea what he is like as a person, but when it comes to modern media the guy is quite clearly ignorant of a lot of modern content. It wasn't an attack on him *personally* as his actual name is not "The Critical Drinker".

reply

[–] Corbell (9572) 7 months ago

That is his online name. I don't even know his real name. I did look it up to get his book, which was ok.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

And again, the point is true that he's out of touch (or conceals any wider knowledge of TV and film)

reply

[–] Corbell (9572) 7 months ago

His millions of fans seem to disagree. As do the millions of fans of the rest of his like minded peers.

Perhaps YOU are the one that is out of touch.

Off to work.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>His millions of fans seem to disagree. As do the millions of fans of the rest of his like minded peers.

They're also out of touch. Too many people have very low medial literacy and think the MCU, Star Wars and franchise movies are the only things that exist. The Critical Drinker makes this worse by constantly focusing on those things.

>Perhaps YOU are the one that is out of touch.

This makes no sense. I am aware of the MCU and Star Wars, but it is obvious that TCD is not aware of many different series and films.

reply

[–] Corbell (9572) 7 months ago

LOL. "very low media literacy"? LOL.

You really don't have many tools in your box, do you? Finding reasons to dismiss sources you don't like, seems to be both your first and last line of defense.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

>LOL. "very low media literacy"? LOL.

Correct. He needs to expand his horizons. The Critical Drinker almost exclusively watches mainstream franchise slop.

reply

[–] Corbell (9572) 7 months ago

Snobs can be funny. How old are you?

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

I'm not suggesting he ought review arthouse films or obscure experimental films, but that he isn't even viewing what would be considered mainstream and easy-to-access modern stuff, and much of it is in his wheelhouse. And if he is such a film/tv hobbyist, I would imagine he should have more interesting in broadening his horizons compared to an average person.

He reviews, almost exclusively, the MCU, Star Wars and franchis media, basically the equivalent of TV chart music and complains about it. It's literally like a music reviewer exclusively listening to chart music and complaining about modern music based on that.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

Did you make it to the playlist portion of your extensive research on the Drinker? Maybe even the "Drinker Recommends" section? Where he brings up films and shows that you brought up and claimed he doesn't watch?

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFz_00sC7mo6MosxP6XeYpwoAtkdVUpq1

I'm sure the guy has a life outside of YouTube, he can't constantly upload content, it takes time, especially if it's about a TV show with multiple seasons. Give him time, he might do a vid on the shows you watch, the shows you think he doesn't watch. If you're gonna stick around instead of moving on from him, then go over his videos and playlists, actually watch them. You might be pleasantly surprised.

reply

[–] Skavau (11216) 7 months ago

Yes, I've seen this. And no, I did not reference these shows. None of them are things I said he hasn't watched. I know he watched Chernobyl, and The Expanse (and I used Expanse as the reason he should be watching some others shows I've referenced)

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1002) 7 months ago

That is quite the strawman you made there. Also I disagree I found his book to be absolute trash much like his analysis of films.

reply

[–] Martoto (4467) 7 months ago

Never heard of RadLibs.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1129) 7 months ago

It's the inferior sequel to Mad Libs.

reply

[–] SandyR (7702) 7 months ago

'You keep using this word (grift), I do not think you know what it means'...

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11304) 7 months ago

This grifter will be gone before it hits 25 posts

reply

[–] Grifterhunter (1002) 7 months ago

So um you were saying...

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12878) 7 months ago

You know, I know of two really big grifters that you could rag on, and they're way more famous than this guy. Wanta go dump on them instead?

reply

[–] Zinger (2215) 7 months ago

I also dislike people who disagree with me.

reply

[–] TearofLys (2411) 7 months ago

He is a legit writer that has sold millions of books. He knows how to build characters and stories, which puts him into a good position to critique movies.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (15541) 7 months ago

Having an opinion is not a grift.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8443) 7 months ago

That's what I'm sitting here thinking.

It seems that every time there's a person who is making some money off having a strong opinion on something, there are these little assholes who come out of the woodwork screaming, "Grifter!" They must live in a world where no one is ever sincere, including themselves.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (15541) 7 months ago

No, what is it is...is envy.

People get jelly because they cant make money the same way so, they point and go "grifter!" to feel better about themselves.

reply