Hey Wolf, I feel that Courage the Cowardly Dog thumbnail is unfair towards the cartoon. Courage would man up, overcome his fears and save his family from monsters at the end of the day. This guy? He would've defended the monsters. "You know? Katz worked really hard to trap them... have you ever run a motel? Stop this negativity."
@mylastaccountgotdeletedtha6936 Exactly. Courage was a real one. Even though he is frightened, the guy always faced his fears for the sake of saving his family, even Eustice who was an a-hole to him.
A movie reviewer refusing to critique a movie for the sake of not "bashing" it is as funny as a teacher refusing to evaluate exam papers because it will make their students sad. A moot point.
When I was like 12 or so, I had this "learn to draw" artbook. I had chose to draw this one picture of a woman in an evening gown. I was proud of my work so on the fridge it went. One day a friend of my Mothers came over, saw the drawing and said: "the face looks funny." That critique pushed me to improve. In Stuckman's mind: "I drew a stick figure once, so I can't criticize Thomas Kincaide."
@@Shockguey he's not doing this for a job. It's worse, he's a failed artist that wants his competition, his "fellow filmmakers" to think well of him. Most fo these artsy types will despise him for being a white straight male.
The thing is, I know where his head is at with how hard he's trying to keep cinema alive. He says it all the time in his reviews and discussions about how worried he is about cinema going capoot. And his constant pushing of his audience to go out and watch movies to support them. Especially since he's made it very clear he wants to get into that circle now. Despite it probably being too late, due to the failing state of cinema. A state of cinema, he's clearly aware of. The issue is, he so very clearly believes now that he CANT criticize anyone related to Hollywood anymore. Because he probably feels like if he criticizes them, he's adding to the fire that is burning cinema down. Contributing the destruction of the very thing he now so desperately wants to be a part of. That, and he so clearly wants to majorly kiss a lot of Hollywood a$s, with the hopes that they'll take him under their wing. But, that's irrelevant. Because he's not going to single handedly destroy Hollywood by being honest, and he's DEFINITELY not going to save it. They've doomed themselves, and it's too late for him to join Hollywood at its height. As it's only falling at this point. The only thing he succeeds in doing is destroying his own reputation as a once well-trusted critic by a massive gathering of fans. Losing his credibility with his subscribers, in order to try to get in the good graces of Hollywood royalty, and a desperate but futile attempt to slow Hollywood's self-destruction.
Stuckmann trying so desperately to get in good with Hollywood reminds me a lot of Quinton trying desperately to get in good with Breadtube. It's. Never. Freaking. Happening. And not because of what you did in the past, but because what you do in the present gives them no value whatsoever.
I mean...I'm personally rooting for Chris to make a killer movie that proves all the doubters wrong. Do I think it will happen? There's a tiny chance, but we'll see. If it sucks and bombs, I have a feeling we'll see him revert to his old persona.
Isn't this just troll's remorse? He used to bash movies before, made a channel and a career out of it, but now he's become enlightened, he has evolved as a critic...coincidentally he's also trying to make it in the industry and it'd be really bad if him bashing movies closed some doors.
The funny thing is that he's STILL closing doors, just unintentionally like a fool. Studio interference is solely responsible for bad movies, not incompetent directors, actors and writers? ...Who exactly does he think greenlights these projects and hires these people? Assuming anyone was interested in working with him, he just insulted them as a class of incompetents whose only purpose in movie making is to fuck things up and give creatives the resources they're entitled to in order to realize their perfect artistic vision. Yikes.
Let me say this: I do not have an issue with Chris not wanting to make an outright review or rant about the movie and instead wanting explain how certain business decisions in Hollywood leads to movies being... soulless for lack of a better term. And to his credit he does say quite a few things that I can honestly agree with him on. The problem is that throughout the video, it feels more like he is placing way more blame on the producers and executives of the movie for Madam Web being bad without any solid proof that they are more responsible than the writers and directors were. Consistently bad directing is not the result of studio medaling. It can be but until we prove that, its not. Bad storytelling on this level is not the fault of studio mandates. Spiderman 3 was a great movie despite the medaling bs Raimi went through. But not this movie. At the end of the day, Chris needs to understand that if he wants to "Elevate" the topic of film making and speak on the positives or whatever, he needs to pick his battles properly and understand that its not bad or unproductive to say that Tommy Wiseau would make a better movie than this. He is effectively infantilizing the writers and directors of film (albeit with his heart in the right place) for the sake of being positive. That is never a good thing especially without any evidence. Also Love you Wolf
I've seen some videos The Drinker made on horrible production experiences that caused films to end up the way they did, and that did not feel like what Chis was doing here. It honestly felt like someone who's afraid of getting the same treatment that he gave Red Letter Media from people he would probably consider his peers given he's a director himself.
Couldn't have said it better myself. He may very well be correct and the studios forced the writers and director into a tough spot that was impossible to get out of. Or, the writers and director just suck. I do believe he is passionate about movies and would love to go on a major rant about why these movies suck, but...he's trying to nudge his way into Hollywood. There's only a select few people in Hollywood who can criticize the modern industry and films while holding on to their career. Chris is not one of them.
Yes sir. His channel used to genuinely be insightful and fun. He was insightful about stuff, and was pretty funny when bashing trash movies. He’s completely dropped it all, and just talks very vaguely about general positive details about every movie. It’s completely pointless content now, and I used to watch him all the time.
There is a market for viewers who enjoy this type of content and it’s find. You’ll see it on the views. I don’t see this as an issue. There’s other reviewers out there. It’s getting very redundant.
The problem with the limitless creator that Stuckman has made up in his head, is that limitations and constraints are the things that drive people to be creative.
This is so obvious to see through. Dude makes a career as a critic and the moment he gets the chance to dance with the big boys, he does a 180 and all of a sudden he doesn't want to "bash" movies. And this wasn't even over some small independent film. It was a movie from a massive studio that cost tens of millions of dollars. So it's not like he refuses to go after the little guys, it's that he's defending the biggest fish in the sea. He's a shill basically. He ruined his reputation as a critic over THAT. And by the way, if his career as a movie maker doesn't take off, he can never go back to being a critic on youtube again. That train has left the station for good.
An example of a critic i really like is Ralphthemoviemaker because he directly will shit on a film and sometimes puts in skits and jokes to make it more entertaining to watch
Part of me wants to believe that Chris has zero energy because he has twin sons. I could never fault him for that. But I can fault him for playing cover for bad films because he himself doesn't want to be criticized. If he's merely trying to prostrate in front of Hollywood in the hopes of fostering a career to provide for his family, I can't fault him for the overall goal, but I'd like to think there's a more noble way of going about it.
An example of producers saving a film would be the producers of the warriors stopping Walter hill from putting comic book chapters in the film for budgetary and release reasons.
I met him on set of his film Shelby Oaks they shot it in Ohio I told him how much of a fan I was and was extremely cold and blew me off with a simple “ oh cool thanks a lot”
If my memory is correct, with Dragon Ball Z the creator was asked to make more powerful antagonists than android 19 and Doctor Gero. Then with androids 17 and 18 were looked at as the delinquents so they asked to make a penultimate villain and that’s how we ended up with one of the best villains Cell. So sometimes studio interference can lead to great things and sometimes it can’t.
Exactly, not every idea a creator has is a good one. They need someone to tell them when something isn't a good idea. Every good creator has someone like this.
To be entirely fair hes been trying to quit that since the start of z. The problems are likely intentional since he's kept there by japanese contract hell.
I'm fine with him not wanting to bash movies. Simply review films you feel positive about and leave it at that. Making it a point to repeatedly say I won't say bad things about films comes off as sanctimonious.
to me, it sounds like chris said....if he got a bad meal with bad service, he would blame the owners of the restaurant/restaurant chain because they stuck their nose into the running of the business, and NOT the bad food and service because they weren't given a chance to do well.
I guess the irony here is: Chris doesn't want to be negative or bash anyone in the filmmaking process... Unless it's a bad film and he wants to be negative and bash studios instead. Ok bruh.
Just here to say stuckman is a hack. Him, jeremy johns, and the like... they don't really know anything about writing or what goes into filmmaking. With the rise of the internet, some people learned how to _sound_ like critics enough to fool the mouth breathers who flock towards those kinds of channels.
This is absolutely false ... I don't like these RU-vidrs but from the few videos that I watched they provided all the information needed about the picture without any spoilers....
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t he say something about the canto Vite stuff and brushed it off as “I skipped it over then it made the film more enjoyable” without saying it’s bad
He wants to rub shoulders with Hollywood at some point. Don't want to be antagonistic towards them at any point before. Out of all the early reviewers from the 2010s only Jeremy Jahns really kept up and improved his quality.
I unsubscribed after that video. It came off as absolutely dishonest and warped logic. Wish him luck, but there's no reason to watch anymore with diluted opinions.
Bookshelves full of NOT BOOKS is the first warning sign. Movieshelves full of NOT MOVIES is the second warning because there’s no room for second place.
I like the “and even that sucked” before we’ve even seen Stuckmans inevitably garbage movie. Let’s just be honest and cut to the obvious here 😂. The best thing Chris could’ve done before his humiliating film debut, is lay low and keep his channel running as normal to minimize the damage. Oops.
Even though we knew he was a spineless coward who sold his soul and integrity to get in with Hollywood for years now, it's nice to have it finally out in the open
Not sure if you have addressed the elephant in the room, but I believe his wife has a lot to do with why he changed. She went woke and pressured him to do the same.
*There was a way for him to avoid all the backlash. Could simply say "I don't like the idea of wasting my time watching mediocre films & when "critics" on places like Rotten Tomatoes give Critical Reception in the 80's & 90's but majority of the Audience scores (The ones who ACTUALLY matter) are in the negative then I will not go to see the film."* Stuckmann went the wrong way about it. Its pretty much my way of deciding to see a film myself because I am not about to waste my money going to see a film of its largely regarded as "Rotten" but the critics can't be trusted as we found with them being bought & paid for by Disney for one & even movies that aren't under the Disney umbrella get heavy praise from critics are awful because of 3 simple words DEI. I avoid anything with DEI implemented into it.
I used to watch him. Then, he announced his venture into Hollywood. And THEN, he started dismissing certain critics as stupid rather than addressing the merit of their criticism. His She-Hulk review was when I realized he was joining the Hollywood cult. His criticism were no longer direct. He soft-peddled a lot of it. She-Hulk was getting a lot of criticism for its terrible story-telling, and he basically would mock and dismiss the critics instead of actually tackling if their criticism was valid. It was then I knew he no longer wanted to be a critic. He wanted to get "In" and was willing to throw his reputation under the bus to do so.
Chris' channel became boring, when he stopped rating movies. I stopped watching him right then and there... From then on, pretty much every review of his was like "if you wanna see this movie, you should go watch it. Or don't ..." 🤨🤷♂️
i used to be a freelance web designer for about 8 years doing projects for many clients, big and small... And no doubt taht they are paying customers, it's very clear before taking on a project what they can and cannot ask, what they changes they can make or when they can make it... when the time comes that certain things are beyond the scope, the $ comes into the picture... and there is a compromise... Otherwise nothing can ever be finished.
This is old news. He criticized the drinker for pointing out how shit the last bond movie was and also described himself as "pansexual". All credibility had already been lost
The internet folding in on itself pointlessly: This video reviewing a pointless video about another video that was all just misunderstanding a harmless jest.
52:24 Butt, butt .... oh nevermind that airbrushing that would've been done with the tank off on a bench, rightside up and before clear coating hahaha .... what a Butt :)
Whatever happened to having an opinion? Stuckmann is entitled to it. If you don’t like his opinion, don’t watch his channel. Spending an hour of your time on the guy is the definition of being overzealous.
You’re talking about a channel that was built on him sharing his opinion but we’re not allowed to have an opinion on what he produces? In an open dialogue centered around a film, are we not allowed to chime in?
What happened to having an opinion? The EGAP crew are entitled to there's and can take as much time as they want to deliver them. If you don't like their opinion, don't watch their channel. Spending time writing a comment on their video featuring an absolutely comical argument in the definition of being stupid.
@@BiggieTrismegistus Did I strike a nerve? Arguing that everyone is entitled to an opinion while in the same breath telling me that I shouldn’t give mine, is blatant sophistry and the of definition of being thin skin and idiotic my friend. We’re not in Orwellian 1984. I can comment on anything I see on here per my right as a user of RU-vid. If the creators get their feelings hurt, tough… criticism is all fair game both ways. You yourself can’t handle it, you’re also free to comment on it, but there’s no way I’m not going to voice my opinion because your feelings are hurt. Feel free to voice your opinion, but I said my piece.
I watched a video the other day about this guys life story... He's definitely not a coward, if he was he would still have a family and still be Mormon and none of us would have ever heard of him. The idea that he is a coward because he doesn't want to review a film is just laughable.
I used to watch the old Stuckman videos for his reviews that felt genuine. Now I'm unsubscribed. How can you review movies but not be critical about them. If people don't learn from their flaws and accomplishments they will never get better. Its like telling a sports team who is number 1 in their field that their trophy and accolades will be given to the team in last place because "they tried and we can't blame them for being in last place".
10:50 Well, the studio did step in and make James Cameron trim out the more preachy elements of The Abyss, where everybody's apparently okay with the fact that our new underwater overlords are gonna be keeping us on a tighter leash from now on. I'd call that an improvement. An improvement they would _never_ have made in Current Year. Maybe some people prefer the director's cut because they didn't even notice the implications and "More is better!" But the fact that a more advanced power is about to step in and remove humanity's agency under threat of genocide (while a happy hopeful score plays) really turns the movie into something more fundamentally disturbing. It tells us a little something about the mind this story came from too. Also, there was The Matrix part 1. I'm not sure what the original would've looked like without studio interference, but I'm guessing it would've been a hell of a lot more like 2 and 3... and 4.
The common mentality amongst upcoming filmmakers is that producers have little to no impact on movies. This is shown in a rather hostile manner mostly.
It's disappointing to see Chris dive deep into the depths of shilling that he chose not to be an actual film critic. Really lost any respect I had for him
WW84 not only didn’t have the oversight it needed but the executives pointed out one of the most common early issues: the movie’s first scene happening twice. They wanted her to pick one. She didn’t. And they let her. And the movie is worse for it. Executives aren’t always wrong. Let’s take music, Heart’s career heights were the 80s. When they gave up creative control of their image and music. Even Ann and Nancy Wilson admit that they sold out, but that it was their most successful point of their careers. They’re not always right it just depends on the executive. Some understand the medium and business. Others understand only business. And those are usually the ones who don’t get what people want.
Ever sense he came out as pansexual he seemed like a shell of himself. I'm just going to speculate that something is going on at home and it broke him.
Haven't watched Stuckman in a loooong time, always viewed him as a limp wristed apologist, glad to see I wasn't remembering him with turd coloured glasses. Also, his short films I've watched have sucked, this doesn't make any of his critiques null and void but it is deeply amusing that he clearly can't practice what he preaches. Hope his newest film turns out better
Ironically, he's bashing producers and studios, in other words, biting the hand that could potentially feed him one day. Why would any producer invest in a writer/director with no track record who is just going to recite a RATM lyric? ("Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.")
@@TheVagabond627 No, he's suggesting you don't try to get into an industry by announcing that you're hypothetical future bosses suck. You can fight for the film you want to make AFTER you have proven you're competent at your job.
Well, not really since in Chris’s own words he used to do that but has supposedly turned to the light side of being nice about movies. It’s not hypocritical to change after all. I mean… he’s wrong, he absolutely isn’t the good guy reviewer he thinks he is. But in his own view that’s the case.
@@MysteriousStranger50 Has he ever said "I was wrong to make videos criticising the prequels, George Lucas and any and every other filmmaker for making bad films because I hadn't made films yet so I didn't know it was hard".? It seems like he owes alot of apologies if he now feels he was wrong to ever criticise anyone for anything related to the creation of a film.
Why hasn't he just left youtube? Or better yet, rebrand his channel and share his experience, and behind the scenes of directing his movies? If you want this to be your carrer, then you don't waste time on youtube making sloppy reviews.
He can’t leave RU-vid since all those movie review/rants he did years ago is still giving him money. Why are those videos of him criticizing movies still up is beyond me…
I used to do concrete work with my Dad for a few years. When my sister needed someone to make the foundation for her first house, we were too busy with other jobs to do it. Because she was on a schedule, she hired some other crew that she was recommended to do the job instead of waiting for us to be available. A couple of years after the house was finished, we found that her house began to develop structural damage due to the foundation warping over time. According to Stuckmann, because I personally know how difficult it is to pour concrete in the hot summer sun, I shouldn't negatively criticize the work that was done on my sister's house.
@@denkerbosu3551 The main thing about being a director is being able to convey your thoughts and feelings on things in order to shape stuff to your vision. If he can't convey his thoughts properly in a movie review then he's very unlikely going to be able to do so with other people
Does Chris Stuckmann not understand that producers and executives are also filmmakers? So are the costume designers, the stuntmen, the consultants, location scouts, personal assistants, set dressers. He uses the term "filmmaker" as if the writer and director are the only people who make a film. It's puerile.
He does refer to himself as “a filmmaker”, also “filmmaker experience” on and on, he definitely thinks that he, he alone is the filmmaker, because he cares about filmmaking so much like no one else in the whole world, promise.
That's EXACTLY what it is. Stuckmann prescribes to the French delusion of film theory; he thinks that it is only the writer/director who is the _auteur_ (said as pretentiously as one possibly can), and every single other person involved in the project serves no purpose but to facilitate the _h'AuTeUr'S_ vision. The truth, as director Alan Parker put it, is that movies are a collaborative experience, every single person brings a bit of themselves to the project. A director can, say, direct a performance, but is never going to get a better performance than one the actor was already capable of delivering; all the director is doing is conducting them. Chris Stuckmann, if he had a spine, would have been the kind of kid who would want the whole playground to play pretend with him, then get mad when they didn't play pretend exactly his way... but he was too weak to direct a playground, so he just played by himself. And he's carried that puerile mentality for decades, and now projects it onto the adult pretend playtime of movies.
What frustrates me about the whole, “I’m being positive you guys” thing is that you don’t have to be positive about the movies that suck. Apologizing for bad films is not being positive. If you want to be positive, highlight good movies.
Lol ikr. Is this the "toxic positivity" these guys are always talking about? If you want actual criticism without being cynically assholeish like Drinker or Mauler (which, that's their thing and shouldn't change)....you can be like the Closer Look and offer constructive criticism. Otherwise, you're sticking your head in the sand
@@xLeeroycranex And it’s just not constructive. Potentially good creators could be being held back by false, ideologically motivated praise. Look at the One Piece Studio. They made Cowboy Bebop, got roasted, and came back better. Same thing happened to the Sonic movie.
@@Tatian4191You can add Alita: Battle Angel to that list as well. They were criticized for how her eyes looked in early stills iirc but instead of crying "SEXISM!" they fixed it and most were happy with the change.
