Whoa ho ho! Witty. Unlike your video. I'd love to continue this battle of wits with you, but I do hate fighting unarmed people.Savant Crime said:
So I bid you good day madam.
The Escapist Film Festival 2010: Opinionated Reviews: Burn Notice
- Thread starter Savant Crime
- Start date
So I bid you good day madam.
Okay, normally I try not to get involved in arguments on forums; and in general not get involved in forums at all, but I feel I have to say something.
That is not a "difference of opinion", that's being rude. You didn't disagree with something she said, you attacked her character and made a completely baseless claim that because you didn't like her video she must thus be incompetent. Neither of those comments had anything to do with the video entered in this contest or your opinion on said video, they were just rude and pointless attacks on the character of someone you don't know.
You didn't have a "difference of opinion", you said:ToonLink said:
ToonLink said:
(Bold added to illustrate my point)ToonLink said:
That is not a "difference of opinion", that's being rude. You didn't disagree with something she said, you attacked her character and made a completely baseless claim that because you didn't like her video she must thus be incompetent. Neither of those comments had anything to do with the video entered in this contest or your opinion on said video, they were just rude and pointless attacks on the character of someone you don't know.
I really should have seen that coming.. but in a moment of weakness I convinced myself I was dealing with someone with a modicum of intelligence or manners.
Quality TV reviews interest me very much as I find myself watching more and more TV shows in the past couple of years. I was sad to see a series trying to do just that didn't make the cut, but after watching it and reading the author's comments here I have to agree that it's probably for the best.
There were mentions of the original text for the review being too long, needing to speak quickly in order to deliver even the shortened version and possibly asking for a longer time limit. All of this gives the impression of lacking professionalism. And your last comment here adds to that - responding in such a way (or, indeed, responding at all) to comments like ToonLink's is simply poor judgment.
Then there's the notion that thoroughly tearing down something is entertaining. Yes, it could be. But we have Yahtzee for that here and he's doing great. There's simply no need for more of that. MovieBob started this way too, and met with quite the cold welcome here. It's a very strong argument for the "ZP rip-off" crowd, as you've felt yourself. It took him some time, but eventually Bob showed his true face: a person capable of deep, thoughtful commentary that overshadows by far the hollow attempts to be entertaining in the same way Yahtzee is. Now I see he's started another series focusing on exactly that type of commentary in a broader range of topics. Do find your own voice and what makes you entertaining. I can see you're quite adept at deducing what makes Yahtzee unique, but I'm afraid for you it's going to be much harder.
I'd even argue that tearing down a popular show like Burn Notice presents another issue of professionalism: You need to know your audience. Is this kind of commentary what your audience truly needs? Should you exercise your unquestionable intellect in a single direction? I'd be very interested to hear why do you think Burn Notice succeeds with its audience, for example. Or what alternatives would you recommend and why. People ask for positive reviews in the previous comments because they want to see what moves you and why instead of simply what you've observed and how would you evaluate it.
I should stop already, although I feel like I need to say even more. Do give us a link to your previous videos and good luck in making more of them, better.
There were mentions of the original text for the review being too long, needing to speak quickly in order to deliver even the shortened version and possibly asking for a longer time limit. All of this gives the impression of lacking professionalism. And your last comment here adds to that - responding in such a way (or, indeed, responding at all) to comments like ToonLink's is simply poor judgment.
Then there's the notion that thoroughly tearing down something is entertaining. Yes, it could be. But we have Yahtzee for that here and he's doing great. There's simply no need for more of that. MovieBob started this way too, and met with quite the cold welcome here. It's a very strong argument for the "ZP rip-off" crowd, as you've felt yourself. It took him some time, but eventually Bob showed his true face: a person capable of deep, thoughtful commentary that overshadows by far the hollow attempts to be entertaining in the same way Yahtzee is. Now I see he's started another series focusing on exactly that type of commentary in a broader range of topics. Do find your own voice and what makes you entertaining. I can see you're quite adept at deducing what makes Yahtzee unique, but I'm afraid for you it's going to be much harder.
I'd even argue that tearing down a popular show like Burn Notice presents another issue of professionalism: You need to know your audience. Is this kind of commentary what your audience truly needs? Should you exercise your unquestionable intellect in a single direction? I'd be very interested to hear why do you think Burn Notice succeeds with its audience, for example. Or what alternatives would you recommend and why. People ask for positive reviews in the previous comments because they want to see what moves you and why instead of simply what you've observed and how would you evaluate it.
I should stop already, although I feel like I need to say even more. Do give us a link to your previous videos and good luck in making more of them, better.
This was an excellent review being excellently read over needless pointless drab imagery. Seriously, the visual are pretty much a textbook study on why ZP style is harder to pull off than it seems. It's too bad, because that's the one thing I can think is wrong with this video and it just happens to be essential to it.
Definitely what I would call a hard-to-not-consider-it-strongly-influenced-by-ZP product. The entire time I was watching the video the two contrasting thoughts of "This is like reading the comments on the internet" and "And what exactly makes you better than the people who works their asses off on BN" crossed my mind alot. I'm on board with the "don't quit your day job" sentiment.
However, bravo for stepping up to the line and submitting.
If you don't take that chance, you'll never know if its your AAA title or not. *golfclap*
However, bravo for stepping up to the line and submitting.
If you don't take that chance, you'll never know if its your AAA title or not. *golfclap*
I will say this: of all the videos in the competition, this is the only one that I took the time to find anything about the person who made it. I then went on to watch all of your reviews to date.
This video is not the best one you have made for obvious reasons (time constraints mainly).
I think you are somewhat stuck (or flip-flopping [take that, grammar]) between styles of review; bashing and critique. When you start blending those with suggestions and perhaps a bit of allegory and illustration your reviews will be much much better.
I did watch them all, so they aren't too shabby.
Don't let the ZP comments get you down. Many people treat him as the raison d'etre for The Escapist website [apologies to the actual Escapist staff] so anything on the site will inevitably get compared to his videos. You seem to highlight legitimate problems in the media you review, Yahtzee mainly rails on things that bug him personally; however, both of your backgrounds are blue, so you are obviously ripping him off shamefully (shamelessly? ironically?)
Anyway, looking forward to future growth.
This video is not the best one you have made for obvious reasons (time constraints mainly).
I think you are somewhat stuck (or flip-flopping [take that, grammar]) between styles of review; bashing and critique. When you start blending those with suggestions and perhaps a bit of allegory and illustration your reviews will be much much better.
I did watch them all, so they aren't too shabby.
Don't let the ZP comments get you down. Many people treat him as the raison d'etre for The Escapist website [apologies to the actual Escapist staff] so anything on the site will inevitably get compared to his videos. You seem to highlight legitimate problems in the media you review, Yahtzee mainly rails on things that bug him personally; however, both of your backgrounds are blue, so you are obviously ripping him off shamefully (shamelessly? ironically?)
Anyway, looking forward to future growth.
Interestingly, I actually like this work quite a bit despite the fact that the creator are horribly, horribly wrong and has even worst taste than the Escapist's current resident professional troll. I wish I hadn't been on vacation away from my computer for the voting time cuz I would've given this my vote and felt better about myself for supporting an opinion which differed from my own. As it is, I'm left to make this post and feel a much hollower (but still noticeable) feeling of self-aggrandizement.
Maybe I just like blue and the toil and stress of making these videos leaves my to find my joy wherever I can, so by using my favorite color as a background I can sprinkle my otherwise horrid day with sweetness and light?Cameron Sours said:
Or I just picked "blue" randomly out of a bucket waaay back in July.
Could go either way.
Anyway, thanks for the comment and the support!
Well... ok here's the thing I do want female contributors on the escapist, I did not like your review =/. first off well it's not necessarily a bad thing that your style is similar to yahtzee's, I did find you as well written or voiced. your character isn't as expressive and it doesn't lend it's self to comedy as well as ZP or extra credits. Your voice tends to drone when you speak that fast. try using some inflection. Last thing, you seemed to be trying way to hard to be negative and just came off as harping =/. Anyways well I won't be voting for you, it was better than anything I've ever done and I wish you luck on other endeavors.
The weird thing about this review is that every time that an actual, objective fact comes up, the reviewer is wrong. Like, dead wrong, just pulled the idea out of her ass. It makes it hard to accept her subjective conclusions when it sounds like she watched an entirely different show.
Example: Weston is a painfully nice guy in the show. In fact, the A-Team type premise is COMPLETELY driven on the fact that he's always helping people he shouldn't. He's such a freakn' sacchirine boy scout that it makes you wonder how he survived in espionage. He _literally_ spends time (kinda stupidly) helping old ladies, over and over again. He's a good guy. Reviewer conclusion: "Michael Weston is such an unlikeable jerk that the villains have to be written as cartoonishly evil. . ."
That example is actually telling because the reviewer gives virtually no examples (with one major exception to follow). I kept waiting for them but they never came. Conclusions, no examples. This is how not to do a review.
The exception: The reviewer does throw out examples when it comes to color -- but then half of her examples contradict her complaint about blue and orange by showing other contrasting colors. This is just messed up; the most solid example she can give is a) not terribly offensive and b) undermined by her example.
Spending ~20 seconds on a 5 minute review to talk about a bit character in the pilot in a show that's up to something like 5-7 seasons seems bizaare at first. Then we learn the reviewer really liked the actor of said bit character and he was on a show the reviewer liked. Then it seemed stupid. Mentioning that you loved some other (controversal) show in a mostly evidence-free review makes the reviewer sound petty and sniping -- which is fine, if you're funny, but she's not, so that's a loss.
This review actually made me like Burn Notice more, if only because I'd feel like an idiot if I agreed with the revieweer. That was a terrible use of 4 minutes, 58 seconds.
Example: Weston is a painfully nice guy in the show. In fact, the A-Team type premise is COMPLETELY driven on the fact that he's always helping people he shouldn't. He's such a freakn' sacchirine boy scout that it makes you wonder how he survived in espionage. He _literally_ spends time (kinda stupidly) helping old ladies, over and over again. He's a good guy. Reviewer conclusion: "Michael Weston is such an unlikeable jerk that the villains have to be written as cartoonishly evil. . ."
That example is actually telling because the reviewer gives virtually no examples (with one major exception to follow). I kept waiting for them but they never came. Conclusions, no examples. This is how not to do a review.
The exception: The reviewer does throw out examples when it comes to color -- but then half of her examples contradict her complaint about blue and orange by showing other contrasting colors. This is just messed up; the most solid example she can give is a) not terribly offensive and b) undermined by her example.
Spending ~20 seconds on a 5 minute review to talk about a bit character in the pilot in a show that's up to something like 5-7 seasons seems bizaare at first. Then we learn the reviewer really liked the actor of said bit character and he was on a show the reviewer liked. Then it seemed stupid. Mentioning that you loved some other (controversal) show in a mostly evidence-free review makes the reviewer sound petty and sniping -- which is fine, if you're funny, but she's not, so that's a loss.
This review actually made me like Burn Notice more, if only because I'd feel like an idiot if I agreed with the revieweer. That was a terrible use of 4 minutes, 58 seconds.
firstoff good job, enjoyed it, have a question though, should you get hired how will this even be sustainable. 10 hours of gameplay in a game makes a review, watching movie twice you can review it, but if you are going to watch en entire season of a show and up to 3-4 seasons you might be running out of time sooner than laterSavant Crime said:
sad how people dismiss you as zp clone when you clearly did alot of research for this and the options for a review are lacking if you dont want to appear on cam by yourself
Why does this video keep haunting me?!
It's 2013, and this was made in 2010. I hated it the first time around because it poorly represented the show, and it's still around tormenting me!
It's been popping up regularly for the last year or so, but it hadn't done it for a few months until now.
It's 2013, and this was made in 2010. I hated it the first time around because it poorly represented the show, and it's still around tormenting me!
It's been popping up regularly for the last year or so, but it hadn't done it for a few months until now.