TGWTG Eric Rodriguez / E-Rod2010 / The Blockbuster Buster - Edgy Nostalgia Critic Fanboy/Knockoff

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Do we have any confirmation that Erod paid to get the book published? I assume he did. Which renders the meaning of getting a publisher to be completely pointless.
i just looked on their website. they're an independent publishing company, so no, it didn't cost ERod anything to get his book published (except for the money he paid for the cover art). also, most legitimate publishers (both independent and traditional) don't charge anything to publish books. they just take part of the book sales.
 
i just looked on their website. they're an independent publishing company, so no, it didn't cost ERod anything to get his book published (except for the money he paid for the cover art). also, most legitimate publishers (both independent and traditional) don't charge anything to publish books. they just take part of the book sales.
That's the thing, I've never heard of a scheme like this before where they publish your first book for you (but only in limited regions and not paying for the artwork which any decent publisher will make artwork without obviously charging you) and then want to charge you for the followup book. It's just an odd scheme.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Ggravy
That's the thing, I've never heard of a scheme like this before where they publish your first book for you (but only in limited regions and not paying for the artwork which any decent publisher will make artwork without obviously charging you) and then want to charge you for the followup book. It's just an odd scheme.
Maybe they just realized they're stuck with a hack, so might as well get some money out of it since I doubt his book will sell.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Captain Syrup
And here i thought e rod had become a forgotten relic of the ca heyday. He's gotten some new found relevance with this book, well done those willing to follow a has been act long enough to see him provide some new material to talk about.
 
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Ggravy
That's the thing, I've never heard of a scheme like this before where they publish your first book for you (but only in limited regions and not paying for the artwork which any decent publisher will make artwork without obviously charging you) and then want to charge you for the followup book. It's just an odd scheme.
fair point. tbh, i thought it was odd a Puerto Rican was charging pounds instead of dollars for his book
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrunoMattei
Since there's nowhere else to lodge this complaint, I just wanted to say I was annoyed years ago by this part of his Tarzan (2013) review
He claims this movie plagiarized an element specific to the Disney version by naming their villain Clayton when John Clayton is Tarzan's birth name in the books. He calls it an "Easter Egg" that Disney used the name Clayton for their version's villain, and even calls the writers of this movie "completely ignorant of the source material".

But in the books, THERE IS an antagonist named William Clayton, who is a cousin of Tarzan, the tension being that if Tarzan ever revealed himself to be alive and claimed his birthright, he would be the Lord Greystoke, not his cousin Clayton, as well as their competition for Jane. You might argue that Clayton in the books is more of a rival than an outright villain, and the books do in fact have a redemption arc for him, so you could call this portrayal of Clayton influenced by the Disney version, but there was in fact in the books a different Clayton who was an antagonist to Tarzan. Ironic for Erod to call this film "completely ignorant of the source material" right after displaying that he didn't even read the wikipedia page of the first book.

And Erod usually talks from a position of authority as a true fan who knows the lore
 
Last edited:
And Erod usually talks from a position of authority as a true fan who knows the lore
He talked smack about the Rocky & Bullwinkle movie claiming it shit on the original cartoon and its lore when it was actually a love letter that explores what happens to washed-up actors who are left behind while remaining respectful to the characters and their legacy. I think the only positive thing he said was he liked Boris and Natasha who were the human perspective of that very thing he criticized. I also remember he was torn apart over his Robots review because he was mean for the sake of being mean and never could back up any of his criticisms. Couldn't tell you anything in particular other than the comments on TGWTG (all of which vanished from existence when it became Channel Awesome) were overwhelmingly negative.

Sometimes I wonder if he only ever sees something at surface-level.
 
He talked smack about the Rocky & Bullwinkle movie claiming it shit on the original cartoon and its lore when it was actually a love letter that explores what happens to washed-up actors who are left behind while remaining respectful to the characters and their legacy. I think the only positive thing he said was he liked Boris and Natasha who were the human perspective of that very thing he criticized. I also remember he was torn apart over his Robots review because he was mean for the sake of being mean and never could back up any of his criticisms. Couldn't tell you anything in particular other than the comments on TGWTG (all of which vanished from existence when it became Channel Awesome) were overwhelmingly negative.

Sometimes I wonder if he only ever sees something at surface-level.
Everything about him is surface level.

Going back to Rocky and Bullwinkle the opening scene in Frostbite Falls shows the narrator of the show having fallen on such hard times he's there narrating what his mother is doing. As she's in the same room as him. If you can't tell this is commentary on, as you said, washed up actors still trying to do their thing then I don't know what to tell you.
 
Since there's nowhere else to lodge this complaint, I just wanted to say I was annoyed years ago by this part of his Tarzan (2013) review
He claims this movie plagiarized an element specific to the Disney version by naming their villain Clayton when John Clayton is Tarzan's birth name in the books. He calls it an "Easter Egg" that Disney used the name Clayton for their version's villain, and even calls the writers of this movie "completely ignorant of the source material".

But in the books, THERE IS an antagonist named William Clayton, who is a cousin of Tarzan, the tension being that if Tarzan ever revealed himself to be alive and claimed his birthright, he would be the Lord Greystoke, not his cousin Clayton, as well as their competition for Jane. You might argue that Clayton in the books is more of a rival than an outright villain, and the books do in fact have a redemption arc for him, so you could call this portrayal of Clayton influenced by the Disney version, but there was in fact in the books a different Clayton who was an antagonist to Tarzan. Ironic for Erod to call this film "completely ignorant of the source material" right after displaying that he didn't even read the wikipedia page of the first book.

And Erod usually talks from a position of authority as a true fan who knows the lore
I love all the dumb fucks in those comments like
"if you want a good tarzan movie go watch the 1999 one"
like no shit.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: BrunoMattei
He talked smack about the Rocky & Bullwinkle movie claiming it shit on the original cartoon and its lore when it was actually a love letter that explores what happens to washed-up actors who are left behind while remaining respectful to the characters and their legacy. I think the only positive thing he said was he liked Boris and Natasha who were the human perspective of that very thing he criticized. I also remember he was torn apart over his Robots review because he was mean for the sake of being mean and never could back up any of his criticisms. Couldn't tell you anything in particular other than the comments on TGWTG (all of which vanished from existence when it became Channel Awesome) were overwhelmingly negative.

Sometimes I wonder if he only ever sees something at surface-level.
I mean Erod is not known for being creative such as his Phantom Menace review where he had epic battle scenes with Geoge Lucas and an evil version of himself.

Or his fucking Justice League video

 
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Falcon Sebben
I loathed the hell out of E-Rod for the being the worst Channel Autism contributor out there. The fact that The Blockbuster Buster was retired two years ago because of the sudden Covid death of his wife She-Rod is nothing short of tragic. No one deserves to die from that. I heard that he is doing reviews as himself since then, so is he doing his own thing so as to completely distance himself from that character?
 
He talked smack about the Rocky & Bullwinkle movie claiming it shit on the original cartoon and its lore when it was actually a love letter that explores what happens to washed-up actors who are left behind while remaining respectful to the characters and their legacy. I think the only positive thing he said was he liked Boris and Natasha who were the human perspective of that very thing he criticized. I also remember he was torn apart over his Robots review because he was mean for the sake of being mean and never could back up any of his criticisms. Couldn't tell you anything in particular other than the comments on TGWTG (all of which vanished from existence when it became Channel Awesome) were overwhelmingly negative.

Sometimes I wonder if he only ever sees something at surface-level.
I also remember he was torn apart over his Robots review because he was mean for the sake of being mean and never could back up any of his criticisms
Oh, how I hated his review for Robots. Spending an amount of time with his dumb theory about a world where robots replaced humans in their world or something like that, pointing out silent celebrity cameos with "fuck yous" (because who the hell even cares?), bitching about celebrities who are not known for voice-over work doing voice-over work (something that he also complained about during the review of "Smurfs 2" regarding Christina Ricci and JB Smoove--as well as "The Legend of Dorothy") to the point of going "why can't we go back to the days of Cree Summer and Rob Paulsen??" (because those people are regulated to TV and additional voices in animated films only, you bitter shit), and criticizing Ewan MacGregor's American accent. His accent was not bad, as far as I can remember. And I can say the same for Benedict Cumberbatch's supposedly "bad" American accent, come fight me.
Also, "Robots" was not that bad of a movie. The review has no business existing.
 
Back