Doge Walker and Channel Awesome

[rabidtictac]

Literally everyone says the non-skit reviews are better.

Haters say they're better. Hardcore fans say they're better. Nobody wants the skits. Nobody ever wanted the skits.

Doge should have done this years ago, but it's better to do it now than never. He needs to reinvent Channel Awesome as basically another Half in the Bag. There's still enough room in that market and he already reviews new movies as it is. Cut out the skits, tone down the autism and just give your thoughts and opinions with a panel of friends in a semi-scripted setting (you don't need a full script, but each person should have a basic idea of points they want to cover.)

It costs less money to make the reviews without skits. It costs less time to make the reviews without showing the entire fucking movie while reviewing it. It's a lazier way to make reviews and it's STILL a step up in quality for Doge Walker the Dog Walker. Doge the Bounty Hunter.

[Cuckara]

Does anyone else here think Doge's worst videos are his editorials? They're the very definition of lazy, he just says obvious shit and quotes IMDb/wikipedia. The worst part is half of the time he doesn't do enough research and gets shit wrong. Like when he talked about good directors losing their touch he mentioned Wes Craven as an example even though Wes Craven was extremely hit or miss. John Carpenter had a string of good films, George A. Romero had a string of good films, Wes Craven was always all over the place. He was the Ridley Scott of horror.

[Whybother]

Doge is wrong constantly. Because his ADHD is so intense he's completely incapable of paying attention.

[VoiceOfReasonPast]

Does anyone else here think Doge's worst videos are his editorials? They're the very definition of lazy, he just says obvious shit and quotes IMDb/wikipedia. The worst part is half of the time he doesn't do enough research and gets shit wrong. Like when he talked about good directors losing their touch he mentioned Wes Craven as an example even though Wes Craven was extremely hit or miss. John Carpenter had a string of good films, George A. Romero had a string of good films, Wes Craven was always all over the place. He was the Ridley Scott of horror.

They were just one of many reasons why I stopped watching him. They cluttered up his list of NC episodes (because they somehow counted as NC stuff despite him being obviously just him as himself), and they never really amounted to anything since he was just wasting time and never gave any definitive answers to any of his own questions aside from "Maybe?"

[drisko]

The problem is he didn't want to put in the work required. Those sorts of videos require a LOT of research and he just threw them out as a way to have content weekly but keep the full NC reviews to a fortnightly schedule.

It would have worked a lot better if he just did a vlog like that Sibling Rivalry thing he does with Rob. The two sit down and talk about a movie people requested that they don't think could make a full NC review and he gets the views without having to put in as much work.

[wildmage]

But his arguments allways boil to a half-hearted "maybe". That's why he is not a redlettermedia-type, at least they have the flilm know-how, have an informed opinion (seriously, one of their best vids is when they break down Hollywood budgets and can explain why BvS 500 mill profit was actually a bad result) and have a definitive answer (Mike says thumbs up, Jay says no, etc).

Doge goes: "yes, no, maybe, it's good except for the parts where it's bad". It reminded me of HyperBitHero delivering a video retrospective on the Yakuza series....that was 50 minutes of him showing trailer footage and reading the fucking wikipedia.

[Cuckara]

But his arguments allways boil to a half-hearted "maybe".

This is the other reason I really hate his editorials. He'll use an inflammatory title like "Is the Tree of Life Full of Sh##?" but in the video he'll act like a cuck and pander to both sides of the argument. He doesn't have the spine or knowledge to get into real discussion of cinema but he wants those sweet clicks. The worst part is his audience laps it up and thinks he's an intelligent guy who has complex opinions.

[Rushy]

Tbf, seeing both sides of an argument is pretty smart, but there should be a final "I think this means..." to close off the video and not leave people hanging with a shrug.

[Cuckara]

The problem is he doesn't go in depth or offer his own thoughts, he very briefly summarizes both arguments and ends the video with "I dunno." Any idiot with a camera and access to IMDb/wikipedia could make this shit. It's Boogie tier spineless, mindless pandering.

[PassTheRemote]

Tbf, seeing both sides of an argument is pretty smart, but there should be a final "I think this means..." to close off the video and not leave people hanging with a shrug.

The problem is he doesn't go in depth or offer his own thoughts, he very briefly summarizes both arguments and ends the video with "I dunno." Any idiot with a camera and access to IMDb/wikipedia could make this shit. It's Boogie tier spineless, mindless pandering.

Yeah, seeing both sides of an argument can allow someone to make an informed decision, but in Doge's case, he is just using it as clickbait. It's not even vids that will get subs, just get on the front page, and get some clicks to get that youtube shekels. He can't tell you if Tree of Life was shit, because it's not mindless pop culture he can understand.

Yes, some movies can leave the ending ambigous, and let the viewer make up their own mind, but not reviews. This was brought up in another thread, but it bears repeating. A lot of "internet reviewers" pick easy targets that the fanbase already has an opinion of and then they parrot the opinion. On the off chance they have an opinion that runs counter to the accepted opinion, they go all Spoony and insult people who have different opinions, for Example, Doge's review of the first Matrix movie.

He'd need actual film knowledge to make an opinion like his editorials are suggesting, but he just doesn't have it and never will.