Channel Awesome / TGWTG general (& ex-contributors) - Dying Gay Review Website

  • Thread starter Thread starter NQ 952
  • Start date Start date

What's the solution to the Crossover posting problem?

  • Shut down this thread & focus on posting about this shitstorm in the lolcow thread

    Votes: 95 23.5%
  • Rebrand thread & post/discuss content from the now former producers

    Votes: 310 76.5%

  • Total voters
    405
You can always tell when he ran out of things to say about a movie because he has to resort to repeating the same talking points over and over in the form of running "gags."

Most people would take that as a sign that there's not enough material to make a full review about it (hell, Cinemassacre summed it up in two sentences when covering the history of the Mummy franchise) and move on to another film, but not Doug.

Watched the whole thing. Would like my time back now. Not the worst video he's ever made, but he couldn't miss the point harder if the point was on another planet.

I find it quite strange that Doug is always ragging on Brendan Fraser and Matthew Broderick for their acting, It's almost like Doug is jealous of these two because they are famous and well liked actors. I honestly have not watched NC since 2012 and i can see form this video with good reason.
 
I find it quite strange that Doug is always ragging on Brendan Fraser and Matthew Broderick for their acting, It's almost like Doug is jealous of these two because they are famous and well liked actors. I honestly have not watched NC since 2012 and i can see form this video with good reason.

Eh, Brendan Fraser doesn't really have much of a career any more. But you may have a point--who knows what's going on inside Doug's head?

^So I haven't seen either movie, but what do you mean by point?

In the video, Doug makes a big stink about many, many things that the 1999 "Mummy" does, comparing it negatively to the 1932 "Mummy." Unfortunately, I don't think he's very familiar with mummy films in general, or the history behind them. If he's seen anything beyond the 1932, 1999, and 2017 versions, I'll be pretty surprised. Spoilered for mummysperging:

NC claims the 1932 Karloff film is the original (true) and superior (arguably true), but then dumps on the 1999 "Mummy" despite the clear parallels between the two. He complains that the 1999 Mummy doesn't appear until an hour in? In 1932, Imhotep wasn't even revealed to be Ardeth Bey until around the 40-minute mark, and that's a film that's only about 70 minutes long. The Ardeth Bey revelation was akin to the Mummy appearing, since aside from a brief, mood-setting scene in the very beginning, the 1932 film doesn't actually feature a classic walking Mummy at all.

The curse granting Imhotep power? Yes, that's because both films--and ALL of these films--derive from the same basic "curse of the pharaohs" narrative, as established in the latter half of the 19th century. By establishing the Mummy as a person and agent/sender of the evil forces acting against our protagonists, the storytellers needed a reason for him to carry those forces: hence the advent of the Mummy as a cursed, unnatural being, one whose existence perverts the world around it in the manner of a classic agent of chaos. In fact, the 1999 treatment makes a little more sense than the 1932 one, since in 1932 the origin of Imhotep's powers was vague and trailed perilously close to "just a creepy Oriental thing."

The comedic tone? Not so much in 1932, granted, but from 1940 onwards Universal and Hammer Horror were both known to put in a little comic relief in the form of hapless sidekicks, wise-cracking men at the pub, etcetera. (NC also complains about a lack of one-liners at key moments, so … make up your mind, Doug.)

The adventure aspect? Mummy films have always had something in common with adventure serials. Consider the protagonists in any given black-and-white Mummy film: sure, there's the gray-haired professor who actually knows things, but the lead character is always a strong-jawed man with sleeves rolled up and a pistol to hand. The roots of the story come from the waning days of the British Empire, when colonialism was A Thing and Kipling lauded the Sudanese with these words: “You're a pore benighted 'eathen, but a first-class fightin' man.” Adventure meant exploring exotic foreign places and uncovering their hidden secrets, and sometimes getting killed by them. Complaining about adventuring and fighting in a Mummy film is like complaining about the yeast in your beer.
 
Eh, Brendan Fraser doesn't really have much of a career any more. But you may have a point--who knows what's going on inside Doug's head?

My apologies i should have said a once famous actor, And what goes on in his head i would guess delusions of grandeur. You know since he thinks he's the next Spielberg or something. Also of note on this subject i love both Hammer, Universal and the Fraser Mummy movies so seeing these "Reviews" and Doug's superior complex against the Fraser movies gets me very peeved.
 
NC claims the 1932 Karloff film is the original (true) and superior (arguably true), but then dumps on the 1999 "Mummy" despite the clear parallels between the two. He complains that the 1999 Mummy doesn't appear until an hour in? In 1932, Imhotep wasn't even revealed to be Ardeth Bey until around the 40-minute mark, and that's a film that's only about 70 minutes long. The Ardeth Bey revelation was akin to the Mummy appearing, since aside from a brief, mood-setting scene in the very beginning, the 1932 film doesn't actually feature a classic walking Mummy at all.

I'm surprised that Doug being the film theory buff that he is doesn't know the best monster/suspense movies build up and wait for a while for the monster to visually appear: Jaws, Alien, etc. You know, for us to get to know the characters, build up the suspense.

Also, Brendan Frasier's a pretty good actor, it's sad to see a career stall like that. And Matthew Broderick is damn good too. I mean the guy's fucking won 2 Tony's. And I love him in Election. He also hates on William Hurt too.
 
I'm surprised that Doug being the film theory buff that he is doesn't know the best monster/suspense movies build up and wait for a while for the monster to visually appear: Jaws, Alien, etc. You know, for us to get to know the characters, build up the suspense.

He's aware of this and has gone on record saying he doesn't like it most of the time. When comparing and contrasting the 1933 King Kong with the 2005 remake, he said he knows monster movies waiting to reveal the monster is par for the course but he hated waiting forty-five minutes to actually see Kong.
 
He's aware of this and has gone on record saying he doesn't like it most of the time. When comparing and contrasting the 1933 King Kong with the 2005 remake, he said he knows monster movies waiting to reveal the monster is par for the course but he hated waiting forty-five minutes to actually see Kong.

But that's honestly a problem with the Kong remake rather than a problem with the practice as a whole.
 
He's aware of this and has gone on record saying he doesn't like it most of the time. When comparing and contrasting the 1933 King Kong with the 2005 remake, he said he knows monster movies waiting to reveal the monster is par for the course but he hated waiting forty-five minutes to actually see Kong.
So, in other words, he's an impatient sped.
 
I can kinda see his point with Jackson's King Kong, that movie is kinda crazy long, but in other cases? Yeah, just wait. Suspense and tension are somewhat important.

I don't even get that argument coming from Doug. He PRAISED the tension and build-up in regards to The original Haunting!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: darkhorse816
I don't even get that argument coming from Doug. He PRAISED the tension and build-up in regards to The original Haunting!
I sorta can, it's different expectations for different kinds of movies at least for me. King Kong's the kinda movie where I wanna see giant monsters just wreck up buildings. If I wanted suspense and tension I'd see Jurassic Park or something.

That said it doesn't sound like Doug has any kind of patience at all which doesn't help his argument.
 
I sorta can, it's different expectations for different kinds of movies at least for me. King Kong's the kinda movie where I wanna see giant monsters just wreck up buildings. If I wanted suspense and tension I'd see Jurassic Park or something.

That said it doesn't sound like Doug has any kind of patience at all which doesn't help his argument.

Honestly the tension and buildup makes Kong even more satisfying. Heck in the movie Aliens, we don't even see them until about halfway in the movie and when we finally see them, it is wonderful.
 
Honestly the tension and buildup makes Kong even more satisfying. Heck in the movie Aliens, we don't even see them until about halfway in the movie and when we finally see them, it is wonderful.

^ This. In both "Aliens" and "The Mummy" (1932 and 1999 versions) we're given time to get to know the characters and understand the situation at hand. Tension comes not just from impatiently waiting for the monster to pop out, but seeing the story set up dominoes that you know are destined to be knocked down. IMO, both versions of "The Thing" do this quite well too.

There's also the fact that the more you see of a monster, the less scary it can become. One of my major problems with the 2017 "Mummy" was that Ahmanet not only popped up pretty quickly (about thirty minutes into a, what, 90-minute film) but we were constantly getting fully-lit, all-CGI shots of her doing weird body contortions and even speaking English. It takes the "other"-ness out of a monster to see it on display all the time. Build up slowly, use it sparingly, and it feels like more a threat.

My apologies i should have said a once famous actor, And what goes on in his head i would guess delusions of grandeur. You know since he thinks he's the next Spielberg or something. Also of note on this subject i love both Hammer, Universal and the Fraser Mummy movies so seeing these "Reviews" and Doug's superior complex against the Fraser movies gets me very peeved.

If the bolded part is true, that's ... kind of sad, honestly. Not sad in a condescending way, but sad in a "lost dreams of little children" kind of way. He makes silly videos on the Internet. If he wanted to be the next Spielberg he should've gone to film school, not spent the past ten years screaming into a camera.

I'd be kind of morbidly curious to see him do a mummy-movie retrospective. Not just the 1932, but the whole Kharis series (Hand, Tomb, Ghost, Curse) and the Hammer oddities. If he genuinely does like the Karloff Mummy, then props to him.
 
If the bolded part is true, that's ... kind of sad, honestly. Not sad in a condescending way, but sad in a "lost dreams of little children" kind of way. He makes silly videos on the Internet. If he wanted to be the next Spielberg he should've gone to film school, not spent the past ten years screaming into a camera.

Honestly it's probably true on some level.

And you see this a lot in the area of theatre/movie/tv business - that one person who really wants to direct/act, but they simply don't have what it takes.

I do feel a lil bad for Doug, because he seems less like a bad person and more just incompetent, but in the end you have to remember he made his bed and he has to lie in it now. He drew the audience he has (tweens and speds), and now he's forced to pander to them to stay afloat.
 
I'm surprised that Doug being the film theory buff that he is doesn't know the best monster/suspense movies build up and wait for a while for the monster to visually appear: Jaws, Alien, etc. You know, for us to get to know the characters, build up the suspense.

Also, Brendan Frasier's a pretty good actor, it's sad to see a career stall like that. And Matthew Broderick is damn good too. I mean the guy's fucking won 2 Tony's. And I love him in Election. He also hates on William Hurt too.
Matthew Broderick is a murdering scumfuck
 
New review featuring MasakoX and LittleKuriboh.


I have never been more annoyed at a Nostalgia Critic skit before now. That opening where they criticize DBZ's lip syncing and budget cuts is nails on chalkboard autistic.

It goes on for 2 minutes and 34 seconds.

They can't even get the details of the show right, they claim that Goku hated fighting and only did so when necessary. You'd think that gaff wouldn't have ended up in the script since MasakoX, cofounder of TFS, was on this review.


Look at the shock on Goku's face when he hears that Gohan doesn't enjoy fighting. If Goku hated fighting then why'd he become a martial artist? It's all he ever wants to do. He even hires a hitman to kill him in Dragon Ball Super just for a chance to fight with him. As retarded as that is, it demonstrates why that remark is absolutely uninformed.

Did they confuse Gohan for Goku?

They also make this bizarre remark about a 6 year old Goku being horny for Bulma when they first met.

This would've been served much better if Doug just binge watched Dragon Ball for a week before doing this review, like he did for the Last Airbender. Having two idiots guide him by hand only does the review a disservice by making shit up.

This review is just as bad as the movie itself.
 
Last edited:
They also make this bizarre remark about a 6 year old Goku being horny for Bulma when they first met.
Agreed with you on all points. Also, I would like to add Goku is portrayed as not interested in relationships and lusting for women like his Master, Roshi. Due to his Saiyan heritage and pure hearted nature.
 
Agreed with you on all points. Also, I would like to add Goku is portrayed as not interested in relationships and lusting for women like his Master, Roshi. Due to his Saiyan heritage and pure hearted nature.

It's beautiful they never brought that up. Goku was never a recluse or wangsty, he was outgoing and optimistic. They fucked this up so bad.

Oh and lol at Piccolo having complex reasons for wanting to conquer the world, if you count racial supremacy as deep.
 
Back