The Nostalgia Critic Thread Lives Again!

[D'Snowth]

I notice everybody else on YouTube pronounces his name "Nos-TALL-gia" Critic rather than "Nos-TAL-gia" Critic.

 

[LittleJerry92]

.....guilty.

 

[LittleJerry92]

It's funny though.

People are critizising the way he reviews movies with the whole riffing schtick.

This might be my own biasness, but isn't that like.... The point of his channel? To rag on movies for fun? Good or bad?

 

[minor muppetz]

On the flipside, this was Jim Carrey's first (and so far only) voice acting role, and it left much to be desired compared to his live-action roles. I agree with Drtooth in that Fox could have saved a lot of money by hiring Matt Frewer instead, but as we've seen before, big-name celebrity recognition trumps all else.

If they couldn't get Jim Carrey, would they have gotten somebody who can sound like him, like Matt Frewer, or would they have gotten a different-sounding voice actor? Did Horton have to have a Jim Carrey-like voice?

 

[D'Snowth]

There seems to be some kind of curse with Jim Carrey . . . there's been too many movies where they wanted Jim Carrey but settled for Will Ferrell instead, and those movie tanked and bombed. Three specific examples come to mind:

ELF: Granted, I actually like this movie . . . I know everybody at MC hates this movie, but I don't understand why. But nevertheless, they originally wanted Jim Carrey for Buddy the Elf - I'm not sure why they couldn't get him, but they got Will Ferrell instead, and honestly, this is only Will Ferrell movie I like. He plays against type. He actually plays a sympathetic character who, despite being quirky and unbalances, has depth and layers that none of his other characters even possess.

BEWITCHED: This movie was bad. This movie was so bad. And once again, they originally wanted Jim Carrey for the actor playing Darrin in the remake since he kind of resembles Dick York to the extent of having a really expressive face, and maybe, just maybe, Jim Carrey could have saved this movie . . . or not, I'm not sure. The premise was interesting, but the execution was clumsy, and the whole movie was just an embarrassment to the original show. And, of course, Will Ferrell is just . . . Will Ferrell.

LAND OF THE LOST: Once again, Sid & Marty Krofft wanted Jim Carrey for Rick Marshall, but couldn't get him, and they got Will Ferrell instead . . . and once again, Will Ferrell is just Will Ferrell. But even the Kroffts are embarrassed by this movie for making the mistake of trying to make the movie like other remakes: almost parodies/spoofs of the original series. I couldn't make it past ten minutes of this movie, and from what I understand, the Kroffts are going to avoid going in that direction with any future movies of theirs, and stay truer to their source materials. But nevertheless, again, Will Ferrell is part of the reason this movie sucks.

 

[minor muppetz]

There seems to be some kind of curse with Jim Carrey . . . there's been too many movies where they wanted Jim Carrey but settled for Will Ferrell instead, and those movie tanked and bombed. Three specific examples come to mind:

ELF: Granted, I actually like this movie . . . I know everybody at MC hates this movie, but I don't understand why. But nevertheless, they originally wanted Jim Carrey for Buddy the Elf - I'm not sure why they couldn't get him, but they got Will Ferrell instead, and honestly, this is only Will Ferrell movie I like. He plays against type. He actually plays a sympathetic character who, despite being quirky and unbalances, has depth and layers that none of his other characters even possess.

Did that movie really bomb at the box office? I thought it was always successful, not just after being released on home video and broadcast on television enough to become a cult hit. This is also the first I've heard that so many people on MC hate the movie (must have missed all the posts), I really like the movie as well and it seems to be a really well-liked movie.

 

[Sgt Floyd]

Are we sure this isnt a case of coincidence and the movies were just doomed to suck from the start, regardless of actors?

 

[D'Snowth]

Channel Awesome has finally released a statement regarding the Change the Channel movement . . . or, more accurately, a counter-attack against disgruntled former employees:

http://channelawesome.com/our-response/

I'm no legal expert, but if you're doing something purely on a volunteer basis . . . why would their be contracts?

 

[Oscarfan]

I mean, if there's money involved, I'd assume some deal is in place.

I've only read a little about what's going on and I don't think I respect Doug less; I've never assumed he was the one in charge of everything, just pretty much a creator like everyone else, only one with a more direct tie to the CEO.

From what I read, the real only slam against him was uncouth direction, and given his love of dark humor, I can see how he'd do something like that, but he's often going on about feminism and how women are portrayed in things.

I'm not trying to defend anything, just my two cents. I've been a fan of Doug since his first YT stuff and I often re-watch (or just listen to) his older vlog videos; if he stuck to those instead of NC, I'd follow the channel more often.

 

[Sgt Floyd]

Ouch. that statement just reeks of spite.

1. There was no apology
2. 'proof' can be altered or fabricated or taken entirely out of context
3. Accusing everyone involved of lying is not how you handle bad PR

everything about this is just 100% unprofessional and the overly defensive attitude about it just makes it sound more suspicious