Callum Nathan Thomas Edmunds / MauLer93 / MauLer and the EFAPshere - Objective discussion about not-Channel Awesome featuring Rags, Southpaw and more!

[A.Shitposter]

"We have a lot of superchats' is such a stupid reason for show bloat on Youtube. EDIT THEM OUT.

But then he'd actually have to edit them.

 

[BR55]

"We have a lot of superchats' is such a stupid reason for show bloat on Youtube. EDIT THEM OUT.

Maybe it's a low key flex or something.
"Look at all the NEETbux I'm getting for sitting on my ass sperging with my friends!"
But he's probably just lazy in all likely hood.

 

[biscuitscilia]

This makes me bring up the whole topic of why have they made EFAP episodes so bloated? This reminds me of CinemaSins in a way, CS started out by making more "concise" videos, with almost none of them ever going above 10 minutes, to wanting to "appease the fans" by making longer videos, to the point where they're well over 20 minutes usually, which makes them awful, boring, and inflated.

This is something Mauler seems to have picked up himself, with both his normal videos being mind numbingly long and the EFAP episodes going from a somewhat watchable 3 - 5 hours, to 7 hours or more on average. I don't know if this is just Mauler sticking with his dumb logic of "long = good", or it's because of all the fans in the comment section constantly memeing about how "10 hours isn't long enough lol", and getting all giddy whenever a long EFAP comes out. They've become such a slog to get through that I don't see how anyone can actually enjoy watching every single hour of this show. The fact that their "intros" of the episode usually last over an hour before getting to the video is especially annoying.

View attachment 1228134

Here you can see how long each EFAP has been up until #79. While the length of the episodes was already on the rise before #50, it seems after #50 they decided to really go full autismo with the length. I get that as the show got more popular, they have more memes and superchats they have to get through, but even then it can all still be cut down and made much more concise by not rambling on and on about things. They rather go on a million different tangents on shit that no one cares about (the stupid "water is or isn't wet" debate being a notable example) instead of getting on with the show.

It's annoying because it makes it harder to understand his takes on stuff. You have to, in some way, rely on someone's word that Mauler said something because hunting for the exact source is going to get nearly impossible.
It takes 25 days to watch all of EFAP.
I know this is an exceptionally autistic example but in the same time frame, you could binge all of One Piece, which has 928 episodes, and you'd still have 9 days left to fill.

 

[Notgoodwithusernames]

It's annoying because it makes it harder to understand his takes on stuff. You have to, in some way, rely on someone's word that Mauler said something because hunting for the exact source is going to get nearly impossible.
It takes 25 days to watch all of EFAP.
I know this is an exceptionally autistic example but in the same time frame, you could binge all of One Piece, which has 928 episodes, and you'd still have 9 days left to fill.

I mean If Mauler could release edited versions of the episodes that cut the focus to the video or videos being discussed that would be a nice happy medium

 

[Quintex96]

This is something Mauler seems to have picked up himself, with both his normal videos being mind numbingly long and the EFAP episodes going from a somewhat watchable 3 - 5 hours, to 7 hours or more on average. I don't know if this is just Mauler sticking with his dumb logic of "long = good", or it's because of all the fans in the comment section constantly memeing about how "10 hours isn't long enough lol", and getting all giddy whenever a long EFAP comes out. They've become such a slog to get through that I don't see how anyone can actually enjoy watching every single hour of this show. The fact that their "intros" of the episode usually last over an hour before getting to the video is especially annoying.

It's actually because prior to 50, they thought the cap for livestreams was 8 hours. If you notice in some of the earlier EFAPs they actually split the streams if they thought they would go over 8 hours. During 50 they went over 8 hours and MauLer decided that they no longer had to arbtrarily limit themselves anymore. Hence after 50 they started getting abdurdly long.

 

[Korpon]

It's actually because prior to 50, they thought the cap for livestreams was 8 hours. If you notice in some of the earlier EFAPs they actually split the streams if they thought they would go over 8 hours. During 50 they went over 8 hours and MauLer decided that they no longer had to arbtrarily limit themselves anymore. Hence after 50 they started getting abdurdly long.

Oh yeah you're right, forgot about that. I guess that gave him the green light to really stop giving a shit about staying on track throughout the EFAP, knowing he has no time limit. He can now let it run on for has long as he wants, allowing more of those precious superchats to come on through.

 

[thatoneguyfromdirtyharry]

I just remembered Ralph's uncle was that guy who got hooked in a freezer in Goodfellas, which could mean his family had (and might still have) mob connections.

So if Mauler ends up disappearing after continuously ranting about Ralph as he does with most of his detractors, it's probably because he got whacked.

 

[biscuitscilia]

I mean If Mauler could release edited versions of the episodes that cut the focus to the video or videos being discussed that would be a nice happy medium

He can't do that because remember, he's known as the longman and that making unnecessarily long videos is one of his main traits.
If he edits down his content to something watchable, even an hour or two, it'd be an admission that his detractors were right and that his videos are long due to shitty pacing, not because they have to be like that for information's sake.
I remember when everyone wanted to be a Plinkett rip off and back then, people thought that shit was long.
Makes me long for it. Now everyone has to bloat up their content.

 

[AsbestosFlaygon]

He can't do that because remember, he's known as the longman and that making unnecessarily long videos is one of his main traits.
If he edits down his content to something watchable, even an hour or two, it'd be an admission that his detractors were right and that his videos are long due to shitty pacing, not because they have to be like that for information's sake.
I remember when everyone wanted to be a Plinkett rip off and back then, people thought that shit was long.
Makes me long for it. Now everyone has to bloat up their content.

The nice thing about Plinkett reviews is that they're structured very well, sure they're hour long reviews but they're made of multiple section shorter sections which make their own singular points. MauLer on the other hand is basically the same as a commentary channel such as Rags, just picking the video apart on a second by second basis with no real structure.

 

[biscuitscilia]

The nice thing about Plinkett reviews is that they're structured very well, sure they're hour long reviews but they're made of multiple section shorter sections which make their own singular points. MauLer on the other hand is basically the same as a commentary channel such as Rags, just picking the video apart on a second by second basis with no real structure.

This is exactly what I thought too, I don't get the impression that he never structures his videos at all despite shitting on people that do.
I can't even imagine how fucking messy his scripts probably are. I get the feeling it's just one massive block of text not even separated into paragraphs.
With Plinkett's videos, they're so well-structured that you can break them down point-by-point. Each segment has a purpose and he articulates his points efficiently. It's formatted like an essay and it's why his videos were so revolutionary for YouTube film criticism.
Mauler's content, on the other hand, is like a marathon of information just thrown at you. Thoughts and points that aren't fleshed out. Tangents and detours. But especially repetition.
He likes to make really bold claims that people only like certain video essayists because of their presentation but then his presentation is just as garbage as his commentary.
Presentation is important too and I'd rather watch a 10 minute well-structured video that gets to the fucking point than a 7 hour critique with bare minimum editing that's filled with fluff that should've been cut out and points that could have been explained in less than a quarter of the time.

 

[Clorox Cowboy]

This is exactly what I thought too, I don't get the impression that he ever structures his videos at all despite shitting on people that do.
I can't even imagine how fucking messy his scripts probably are. I get the feeling it's just one massive block of text not even separated into paragraphs.

I wouldn't be surprised if he writes a bulk of his main videos just like EFAP.

Start movie
Pause ten seconds in
Write down what he doesn't like/errors
Play another 10 seconds
Pause
Write
Repeat

Lot's of the stuff he points out, be it correct or not, doesn't really add to an overall point beyond "This movie is bad" I doubt he approaches videos planning to cover specific topics or themes.

Anyone can break down a movie and point out minor plot inconsistencies, errors and areas they don't like personally like frame by frame. There is no such thing as a perfect film no matter how enjoyable or well made it is. Maulers "thorough" formula could be applied to something like Citizen Kane. I could make a three hour long video pointing out how some sets change between shots, how the camera is visible occasionally, or how some scenes are overacted to the point of being humorous. If I did that though I'd be laughed off YouTube because these elements in isolation do not detract from Citizens Kane's overall quality and as far as the bigger picture of the film goes they are worthless criticism. Not that they don't matter at all, films should strive for perfection, but just pointing out the mere fact that inconsistencies exist doesn't mean anything without stating why they matter. A puzzle changing between shots is meaningless on it's own in a three hour video that is nothing but listing errors. If my video was purely about the inconsistent set design the criticism would both better contribute to my argument and strengthen the viewers understanding.

Mauler brings forth several complaints about the Disney Star Wars movie in which he is 100% correct, but without an overall point that criticism is meaningless. There is no concrete thesis to any of his videos beyond "good" or "bad." He could have made a really strong case for TLJ being a bad film that fails to give believable depth to it's characters and subsequently renders all emotional scenes meaningless. He doesn't though because in his mind longer=better and he rather point out non-issues to give the video a bloated length regardless of the merit of each complaint. It's at it's worst when he points out things that are clearly more tone-setters than anything else. Flickering lights, improbable costume design, and empty settings are all things he has criticized before without realizing that in-context they are being used to convey tone and impart ideas to the viewer without explicitly stating anything. Mauler doesn't understand film and it shows.

 

[DisaffectedDude]

He also has this incessant need to bring up EVERY instance of an issue instead of just listing off 3 or 5 of the most egregious examples to demonstrate it. Like, I GET IT the film has 'tonal issues' or 'plot holes' fucking move on.

 

[Korpon]

Since we're talking about his lack of conciseness, here's a little comment thread on Mauler's first TFA critique series, which is just a good example of how his fans react to the idea of conciseness. Jwubbz being the non retard here.

ITS HUNNI does bring up a good point about how you need to strike a good balance, yet fails to realize Mauler fails at that miserably. The rest of the comments are just your typical room temp IQ Mauler fans.

 

[biscuitscilia]

Since we're talking about his lack of conciseness, here's a little comment thread on Mauler's first TFA critique series, which is just a good example of how his fans react to the idea of conciseness. Jwubbz being the non exceptional individual here.

View attachment 1238972View attachment 1238973

ITS HUNNI does bring up a good point about how you need to strike a good balance, yet fails to realize Mauler fails at that miserably. The rest of the comments are just your typical room temp IQ Mauler fans.

He has a point but I'm pretty sure my professor would have a heart attack if I gave a report written in the style of Mauler's videos. You're supposed to have a point, express the point, give evidence, then move on.

 

[off meds / online]

mauler would be straight up laughed out of film academia if he brought any of his analyses to the table. for all the effort he sinks into them, his understanding of film is incredibly surface level and it really shows.

 

[José Mourinho]

EFAP literally means "Every Frame A Pause", so it's very likely Mauler just brings his points up by just analyzing movies/media every few seconds of it or even frames of it.

I didn't even watch his tl;dw boring podcast of Avatar, if he does his analysis via this way does he ever mention about "bad animation" which can be misled due to pausing in animation for specific frames?

 

[Shieldman]

I didn't even watch his tl;dw boring podcast of Avatar, if he does his analysis via this way does he ever mention about "bad animation" which can be misled due to pausing in animation for specific frames?

The bulk of complaints in both things like Avatar or The Mandalorian are stuff like "He should have used this technique but didn't" or "that gun shouldn't work that way" or "If they could have done X thing all would be solved, so dumb". Basically a laundry list of "inconsistencies" wich by themselves are super weak argumentation and mostly meaningless shit.
Then Rags swoops in with bad takes like "Joker is better than Taxi Driver" and you die a little inside.

 

[biscuitscilia]

The bulk of complaints in both things like Avatar or The Mandalorian are stuff like "He should have used this technique but didn't" or "that gun shouldn't work that way" or "If they could have done X thing all would be solved, so dumb". Basically a laundry list of "inconsistencies" wich by themselves are super weak argumentation and mostly meaningless shit.
Then Rags swoops in with bad takes like "Joker is better than Taxi Driver" and you die a little inside.

"Joker is better than Taxi Driver"
I'm not surprised the faggot with the least film knowledge compared to Mauler has such shit taste. And I liked Joker.

 

[HavaLottaTimetoSpare]

Joker is a movie that probably seems like it's brilliant and ground breaking when you've seen as few films as these Chuds have. I know they think media literacy is for losers, but being able to tell that Todd Phillips was just slamming his Scorsese action figures together after he put clown makeup on Travis Bickle does not make you a waffle Bush or whatever stupid meme his Discord made up that day.

 

[Doctor of Autism]

Joker is honestly a good movie and a good introduction for more deeper films, people like Mauler and that redneck who got mad about it getting snubbed treat it like it's the holy grail of movies and that there is no movie like it.