As many of you may know, this blog was inspired by Doug Walker and his character, the Nostalgia Critic. When I created Reviews and Retrospectives, I took a page out of Walker's book with the intention of paying tribute and showing my respect to him. However, in light of the recent controversy surrounding him and Channel Awesome, I am slowly losing respect for him. I understand many of the grievances were caused by CEO Mike Michaud, but I can tell Walker and his brother were also part of the problem. They mistreated many of their fellow producers, such as Kaylyn Dickson (Marzgurl), Lewis Lovhaug (Linkara), and especially Allison Pregler (Obscurus Lupa). It sickens me that a man I looked up to, a man I idolized and saw as a source of inspiration was allowing these problems to happen. He had many opportunities to stand up and say something; despite being an advocate for freedom of speech, he did nothing to quell the fears and he still has yet to address them. I understand he may be afraid of Michaud, but because him and Rob have yet to say anything at this moment, Channel Awesome is going into the red; it is losing subscribers by the day and producers on the site are leaving at an alarming rate. Mr. Walker, I doubt you are reading this. However, if you are, you have to say something and somehow address this situation. One can not ignore a problem forever, and if it is left untouched for too long, it could kill the site. I have always dreamed of working for Channel Awesome, but after hearing of this controversy, I am not sure if I still want to. Until further notice, I think I will be limiting my viewing of Nostalgia Critic; knowing he was aware of these problems and did nothing to change them shows the truth behind his character. I idolized Walker for his advocacy toward the first amendment and equality for content creators; seeing he was partially behind the problems with his company, it makes him seem a tad hypocritical. All I can say is that my heart goes out to those affected over the years, and I pray Channel Awesome can somehow make a change.
If you would like to learn more about the controversy, feel free to look at the google doc known as Not So Awesome: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WZFkR__B3Mk9EYQglvislMUx9HWvWhOaBP820UBa4dA/preview#heading=h.v89be0jiemu0
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Is The Nostalgia Critic going "Nostalgia-Blind"?
(Disclaimer: This is by no means an attack on the Nostalgia Critic; it is simply to express my opinions on his recent "Disney Remake"-themed month, as well as my opinions of his recent reviews.)
Many of my longtime readers will know that I have always been a massive fan of Doug Walker's webshow, The Nostalgia Critic; matter of fact, it was one of the inspirations for this blog. However, I have began to notice a trend with his recent reviews, particularly those surrounding Disney's live action remakes. While I agreed with his opinions on Maleficent and Alice: Through the Looking Glass, I did not agree with his thoughts on The Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast. I felt while he did a great job pointing out the latter two's flaws (and yes, there are some that are prevalent), he neglected to point out the positives of both. Essentially, he "tore the two films a new one" while putting the originals on a high pedestal and seemingly insinuating they are flawless.
The original Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast are amazing films, but they are certainly not as flawless as Walker implies. The Jungle Book (while it has great animation and storytelling) is somewhat lacking in character development, and has some instances rushed pacing. Beauty and the Beast; while it nailed the story and characters, it had various plot-holes and left viewers with so many questions such as "why is Agathe (the enchantress) cursing an eleven year old boy"? Walker seems to sidestep over these facts in his reviews, continuing to imply they have no flaws. However, when discussing their remakes, he seems to imply any of the changes made did more harm than good. I can agree with this on only two instances, the ending of The Jungle Book and Belle's developing relationship with the Beast.
Keeping Mowgli in the jungle essentially negates any development the character gained, making it seem like nothing has changed at all. As for Beauty and the Beast, it seemed like someone was pressing the fast-forward button on Belle and Beast's relationship. It was rushed, flawed, and it was not given the necessary amount of depth. We see them interacting, but we fail to see the spark until Something There; maybe afterward when Belle revisits her childhood home. As for the other changes that were made, I feel they improved the story.
The characters in The Jungle Book were depicted in a way that was a hybrid of their original Disney and Kipling counterparts. I feel the new version of Shere Khan was more intimidating than the original, hearkening back to how he was written by Kipling; as for Mowgli, I am glad they decided to make him a stronger character. In the original Disney film, I felt he acted more like a spoiled child. However (in all fairness), I did not like how Bill Murray's version of Baloo was manipulative toward Mowgli. In regard to Beauty and the Beast, while the changes could have been executed better, I feel they strengthened the story as a whole. Taking elements from the stage musical such as the castle staff slowly becoming inanimate raised the stakes of the curse, and added a stronger sense of urgency to the film's "race against the clock" aspect. Additionally, giving the characters a stronger backstory (such as that surrounding Belle's mother) allowed for a greater amount of depth and character development; it also gave her the ability to relate to Beast, who also lost his mother as a child. I feel Walker may be watching these films with "rose-colored" glasses. He holds the originals in such high regard, that he automatically dismisses new interpretations of these stories; completely ignoring the flaws of the source material.
Many of my longtime readers will know that I have always been a massive fan of Doug Walker's webshow, The Nostalgia Critic; matter of fact, it was one of the inspirations for this blog. However, I have began to notice a trend with his recent reviews, particularly those surrounding Disney's live action remakes. While I agreed with his opinions on Maleficent and Alice: Through the Looking Glass, I did not agree with his thoughts on The Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast. I felt while he did a great job pointing out the latter two's flaws (and yes, there are some that are prevalent), he neglected to point out the positives of both. Essentially, he "tore the two films a new one" while putting the originals on a high pedestal and seemingly insinuating they are flawless.
The original Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast are amazing films, but they are certainly not as flawless as Walker implies. The Jungle Book (while it has great animation and storytelling) is somewhat lacking in character development, and has some instances rushed pacing. Beauty and the Beast; while it nailed the story and characters, it had various plot-holes and left viewers with so many questions such as "why is Agathe (the enchantress) cursing an eleven year old boy"? Walker seems to sidestep over these facts in his reviews, continuing to imply they have no flaws. However, when discussing their remakes, he seems to imply any of the changes made did more harm than good. I can agree with this on only two instances, the ending of The Jungle Book and Belle's developing relationship with the Beast.
Keeping Mowgli in the jungle essentially negates any development the character gained, making it seem like nothing has changed at all. As for Beauty and the Beast, it seemed like someone was pressing the fast-forward button on Belle and Beast's relationship. It was rushed, flawed, and it was not given the necessary amount of depth. We see them interacting, but we fail to see the spark until Something There; maybe afterward when Belle revisits her childhood home. As for the other changes that were made, I feel they improved the story.
The characters in The Jungle Book were depicted in a way that was a hybrid of their original Disney and Kipling counterparts. I feel the new version of Shere Khan was more intimidating than the original, hearkening back to how he was written by Kipling; as for Mowgli, I am glad they decided to make him a stronger character. In the original Disney film, I felt he acted more like a spoiled child. However (in all fairness), I did not like how Bill Murray's version of Baloo was manipulative toward Mowgli. In regard to Beauty and the Beast, while the changes could have been executed better, I feel they strengthened the story as a whole. Taking elements from the stage musical such as the castle staff slowly becoming inanimate raised the stakes of the curse, and added a stronger sense of urgency to the film's "race against the clock" aspect. Additionally, giving the characters a stronger backstory (such as that surrounding Belle's mother) allowed for a greater amount of depth and character development; it also gave her the ability to relate to Beast, who also lost his mother as a child. I feel Walker may be watching these films with "rose-colored" glasses. He holds the originals in such high regard, that he automatically dismisses new interpretations of these stories; completely ignoring the flaws of the source material.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)