I do notice the same trend, but I think there are some key differences between mediums.
With video you can get away with just making a few. Sequelitis guy has only made a handful, and is pretty popular with a minimal output. A web-comic needs to maintain output. It doesn't need to be a high level of output, but it needs to be greater than zero. More is still better. Penny Arcade's never-ending consistent run has benefitted them greatly. Megatokyo's intermittent output was able to keep the ball rolling for a long ass time. But there are plenty of once-pouplar, long-running comics that disappeared from all radars shortly after they ended. Atomic Robo used to be brought to you buy Brian Clevinger of 8-bit Theater. Now he's Brian Clevinger of Atomic Robo and wtf is 8-bit Theater?
Another thing that is important is face time. Not all videos have an actual person appearing on screen, but many do. Even if it just someone's voice, that person gets fame and notoriety for themselves. A comic artist can only get this at a convention when sitting at a booth with their art on display. At MoCCA Kate Beaton's booth has a long ass line. When she walks around to talk to people, almost nobody approaches her. It is partially out of politeness on the part of those who recognize her, but mostly that her work is more famous than her personality. Mike & Jerry go to great lengths to promote themselves by appearing everywhere, and still people who know their work don't know them.
Sequelitis guy? You mean Egoraptor. Dude has a butt-ton of non-Sequelitis videos, and that's not counting all of the Game Grumps he puts out daily.
But yes, the majority of stuff put out isn't very good. I happen to like it since I am part of the generation that is growing up with it, but there's a lot of trite out there.
But they are not on the radar as much anymore. I would like it if that stuff gradually faded to the background like most terrible webcomics have done. That said there must be viewers for some of these thing otherwise they could not support themselves as they do.
They're already in the background in my opinion. I just don't watch Let's Plays, and have never seen a good one. ;^) How does one even run into these videos? Do you search for them? Click on random suggested videos? I'm very careful about what I click on in Youtube.
They don't need that many viewers, since none of them make money anyway
I'm actually really curious about how much income you get from doing this practice. Some people do make a living off of creating a web series or vlogging about their life on youtube, but it does come down to how much advertising you expose to their audience.
Certain people from the website do completely circle their professional and free time around these websites, which is probably why they are so on edge and really want to try and do as much as they can to succeed through this way of living.
Sequelitis guy? You mean Egoraptor. Dude has a butt-ton of non-Sequelitis videos, and that's not counting all of the Game Grumps he puts out daily.
But yes, the majority of stuff put out isn't very good. I happen to like it since I am part of the generation that is growing up with it, but there's a lot of trite out there.
Ok then. There are still other people who are pretty popular only with a handful of videos. SleepyNinjaToast has 17 videos and 4k subscribers on YouTube.
I'm actually really curious about how much income you get from doing this practice.
Aside from a tiny minority of people? Basically nothing. Most of the people who do videos like these "full time" either have some other source of income or are living on the edge of poverty.
The reason I liked the Red Letter Media reviews of the Star Wars movie was because I never saw the reviewer. The character worked so well because you could imagine anything you want. The very concept of hidden things being more magical is exactly the problem with the prequels, where only imagined scenes were played out, and they led to inevitable disappointment.
And then, in a Red Letter Media review recently (I think The Dark Knight Rises) they cut to a guy talking... and it was the guy from the other videos. But now he's not a serial killer. He's just a guy sitting on a chair. Boring!
I was instantly annoyed at the Nostalgia Critic video because I was forced to look at a very annoying face with a guy behind it trying to be as annoying as possible.
I guess that's a difference in taste because I like being able to see the reviewer. I like cases where they're not seen as well for reasons similar to the ones you gave, but I also like the ease of differentiating series based on their being tied to a specific person or character that I can easily visualize. It creates a quick, easy mental picture in my head that goes "Oh! Right. This is the series done by this person, and this is the series done by that person." Plus I do like seeing the visual reactions and other expressions of the reviewer when they're appropriate.
As for RLM: the Plinkett reviews are still the same as they always were. The newest is the Titanic review here. What you're referring to with the guys in the chairs is Half in the Bag, their other show. That's a more traditional style Roger and Ebert style review show, only done with their particular brand of humour, analysis, and sketches.
Though, to be fair, the Plinkett reviews do have a specific look for the Plinkett character, and have since at least the Episode II review. He's featured on their merchandise and he's used for videos that tease new reviews and such. I think that image of him on the red background has been in a few of the actual reviews, too.
TL;DR: I like both approaches fine for their own reasons. If you don't, that's fine too.
Eryn, I'm not saying I prefer to never see the reviewer, just that not seeing Plinkett in the Prequel reviews was a really good creative decision. Seeing or not seeing him would have been fine, but in this case not seeing was the right choice.
Also seeing him would have made the videos no less recognizable. The voice acting is all that's needed. Unfortunately for tgwtg videos, the acting I saw was all just terrible. As I don't watch TV, I'm not used to seeing acting that bad.
And I checked out the Moulin Rouge video from the Nostalgia Critic. Or about 3 minutes of it. Hint to anyone wanting to negatively criticize a musical: if you're going to do it in the form of a musical, your music has to be BETTER than the music in the musical! And if you're going to criticize acting in movie, your acting has to be BETTER.
I don't mind spending less on production, of course, but if you're complaining about lack of talent, and wanting kudos for showing off your own talent, then you have to impress me more than the thing you're complaining about impressed me, or else I rightly conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.
On the other hand, if you're not trying to impress me with your talent, and instead just do a good review, I'll go with that no problem. You know, just like every other critic. Do an entertaining review, that's enough. Don't complain about Moulin Rouge being chocked full of cliche when reviewing a musical in the form of a musical is one of the most cliched choice possible.
But they are not on the radar as much anymore. I would like it if that stuff gradually faded to the background like most terrible webcomics have done. That said there must be viewers for some of these thing otherwise they could not support themselves as they do.
They're already in the background in my opinion. I just don't watch Let's Plays, and have never seen a good one. ;^) How does one even run into these videos? Do you search for them? Click on random suggested videos? I'm very careful about what I click on in Youtube.
They don't need that many viewers, since none of them make money anyway.
Normally they come from sources that I trust to not be terrible. For instance Beagle's play through of X-com is interesting as he explains why he is doing what he does and how it benifits his troops. Its also funny there are good jokes but its not throw what sticks I feel that the stuff is actually written that way. CHKilroy is enjoyable to watch what is esentually a carry on film in action. Like wise with Dslyecxi's videos are pleasurable to watch as they are an over view that is just the game. I don't have a hooting jackass going on about how sweet that head shot was, and then going back and showing it again and again. Also watching him heard cats never gets old. I occasionally watch some of the Achievement hunter stuff but its mostly hit and miss these days and trying too hard.
That is about it, the Bro-team stuff is a bit more interesting but not massively on the radar. That siad for all of this there are scores of people that just churn out videos of the same game that everyone plays doing the same thing. For instance, how many Mine craft lets plays are there which is just people failing, squawking and generally being children for hours upon hours.
I watch (and sometimes make) Pokemon Nuzlocke LPs but I'm not even going to defend those. Basically every criticism of them is true and they're only worth watching if you're just that interested in seeing variations on how different people play that particular challenge out. Oftentimes not even then. I am that interested in those variations, so I watch them. That's about all I can say.
Anyway, Luke: fair enough. I read you wrong when I thought you were saying that you preferred not seeing the reviewer to the exclusion of others. Mea culpa. :c
I do like the Moulin Rouge review, mainly because I really liked the sense of fun I got from the producers involved in it. Do I agree with their take on it? Some parts yes, some parts no. Are they as talented as Baz Luhrmann, Ewan McGregor, Nicole Kidman, or heck, even that villain guy? Not even close. But I do find their enthusiasm infectious, and while their adapted songs aren't that great, they're cute enough to amuse me and they get their points across. For me, it doesn't matter as much that they're not as accomplished, because if someone has a point about the movie, good or bad, it can still stand apart from whether the critic can replicate/surpass it or not.
That said, you do have a point about critiquing in a manner that's meant to garner attention and kudos for the person doing the critique, and I'm not sure why that doesn't bother me personally when I watch these videos. Maybe that's just a difference in taste again. You said so yourself that you have really high standards for acting, so you know very clearly what sits well with you and what doesn't. I might just have different standards. I've always worried from a young age that I couldn't pinpoint bad acting as easily as most others could, so I would believe that. For example, I've never had as many problems with Keanu Reeves as most; I know objectively the things he does wrong, but those things don't register as strongly for me when I actually watch him. I guess I'm just not really sensitive enough to tell in a lot of cases. I wondered (and still wonder) why that is for me, and I still haven't quite figured it out.
Sooo, yeah. Not really much else to say there, I guess, if it comes down to that. If you groove on the style, great. If you don't, you don't, and that's fine too. Again, with any luck, once the boom phase for this sort of media dies down a bit, the amateurs who are sticking with it will polish up to higher levels of production, and people who already have higher production skills will get involved, same as with podcasts and such. That'll be good for viewers in both camps.
(Side note for comparison's sake, I'd recommend having a look at Brows Held High's review of The Man Who Fell to Earth as an example of a better musical review. Kyle Kallgren has better pipes than your average internet reviewer, and his review doesn't tear the film down like the Moulin Rouge one does. Pokes fun at its oddities, yes, but overall he seems to respect it, so his review acts as a complement to the film rather than an "I can do better than you" kind of thing.)
Personally I don't have super high standards for acting, but I'm used to seeing it done by professionals more than amateurs. The people I saw on TGWTG, including the Nostalgia Critic, were considerably worse actors than I'm used to.
Personally I've never had a problem with Keanu Reeves either, I've always thought he did a good enough job at whatever role he's been given.
To bring it back to Red Letter Media and Plinkett, what made the Prequel reviews so fun is that they were more entertaining than the movies they were critiquing, and told better stories within the limits of their production values. What I'm trying to say is that the production team used their limitations to the full, and to their advantage. Unlike George Lucas.
But in the Moulin Rouge episode, they begin with a copy of the opening of the movie, and don't do a good job with it. Or they didn't do as bad as a job as they should have done with it. If it had been paper puppets in from of a screen? Funny. But green screens and bombastic music is trying to ape the very thing you're about to slag off. Then they cut to a badly decorated set... Not in terms of money spent, but when they cut to an upwards looking shot, all I could focus on was where the papers stuck to the wall ended. Couldn't they have continued the paper up the wall to the ceiling, or reframed the shot?
What I'm trying to say is that while criticizing a movie they are betraying the fact that they know less about making a movie than those who made the movie... and yet trying to appear clever. You don't get to do it both ways.
Be a professional critic.
Or do parodies of bad movies in a bad way to make fun of the movie.
Mixing the two means you're not bring funny enough and not bring professional enough.
I would say that the fact that someone either doesn't understand/isn't skillful at some aspects of filmmaking does not necessarily invalidate their opinions on films. The NC in particular I would 100% agree is not a cinematography guy. He and his brother have traditionally been just barely competent with cameras and lighting (though, judging by The Review Must Go On, they seem to be on the path to improvement). I think their rushed production schedules have contributed to this, given that they produced a full episode a week for such a long time, but it still stands as a major flaw.
A little later in the Moulin Rouge video, though, he does make a good point about the frenetic editing of certain scenes making it difficult to appreciate the aesthetics of such bombastic and intricate shot setups. In a movie that is almost entirely style over substance like that, this is a major problem when it comes up. He then goes on to cut a montage of clips from the movie with other random clips in an imitation of the editing style in the scene, and I think that works fairly decently. Could have been done with just a bit more finesse, but the point is communicated, competent editing skill is displayed, and it got a chuckle out of me.
I would agree that in general, the NC is pretty hit or miss. Sometimes he really hits and sometimes he really, really misses, whether it be through slipshod cinematography, forced gags, misuse/misunderstanding of logic in narrative, or whatever else. I think what got me hooked on him in the first place was mainly just the content he covered, a lot of which was either new to me at the time or I just hadn't been reminded of in years (hence the appropriate title "Nostalgia Critic"). He and the AVGN are pretty much the prime examples of "right place, right time."
What kept me around after that novelty had worn off, I think, was a now-comfortable familiarity with the character, my continuing self-education about 80s and 90s pop culture, any good points the Critic still made, and the one or two laughs I still got per episode. I'd liken him to that one loud friend some people have who thinks he's really funny, and sometimes is. Even though he can be annoying as all get-out sometimes, he's still your friend because you've known him a long time, you share in-jokes, you enjoy his energy, and you care about what's going on in his life. But you also wouldn't be surprised when someone meets him for the first time and is instantly turned off by the bad jokes and obnoxiousness.
Sorry if this is rambly. I think this turned into less answering you and more me working out for myself why I still like the NC despite acknowledging his many, many flaws.
Out of curiosity, what other reviewers/episodes of stuff did you try? While the NC is definitely spotty, I would stand much more firmly behind shows like Todd's Pop Song Reviews, Brows Held High, or the Nostalgia Chick's more recent work.
I'm a fan of the Cinema Snob, Spoony (no longer really a part of TGWTG), and Benet the Sage in addition to the reviewers you mentioned.
And I NEED to see Zettai Karen Children: The Unlimited.
So a couple of really odd things I've noticed lately with TGWTG.
JewWario has left Channel Awesome and it has to be one of the most bizarre because he is one of the most level-headed, cool, and kind personalities on the whole website. I know he has a lot of projects, but it is pretty sad that he is leaving.
I have to call out Nostalgia Chick on her whole "50 Shades of Green" idea. Mostly because...it's actually been done before. Done by NSFW Podcast Host's Brian Brushwood and Justin Robert Young, they created and published a parody known as "The Diamond Club" and released it through Amazon to sell. Maybe the Chick wants to go one step further and get it published, but again, it lacks punch of being special if it has been done. Similar to how everyone was criticizing "Demo Reel" for having the same plot as "Be Kind Rewind." Proof: http://www.dailydot.com/culture/diamond-club-crowdsourced-50-shades-spoof/
And the last is a statement on the content, with Linkara. Love his original plotlines being worked into his reviews, but with his newest arc, I've really started to notice the flaw in his stories. The other actors he gets, especially this new one playing the Gunslinger, is flat out bad. Do all you want to question the acting talents of the hosts like Linkara and The Critic, but when they get on extras who just aren't up to the plate, boy can that take you out of the mood.
Jew Wario is on Retroware TV and Project Million as well as having his own site, so it's not that bad. You can catch him elsewhere.
Just because someone else did something similar doesn't mean someone can't try the same thing. The second to do it, just has to do it better or different.
Linkara has a lot of flaws, especially in the exposition department, but I chalk it up to the format he has to write in. Unlike comics, novels or just a show that is just storyline, he has to do it in a review show. He has gotten better at writing, but he still has to learn how to better use those constraints to his advantage.
The dirty little secret, Blip.tv has RSS feeds for the videos, subscribe to that and you will get notified when a new one goes online. Sites like RWTV and TGWTG are for people that want to enjoy a community or discover a web person in their interest.
So have people been watching Lindsay's new project, Fifty Shades of Green? I dismissed it at first, because I really don't care about Fifty Shades things, but recently I was like "how can this be a 15 part series? What are they doing?" and was shocked and amazed by it. The whole idea of crowd sourcing a book is kind of amazing on its own, but even more shocking is that I think I unironically like it.
I dismissed it at first too because I figured Twilight parodies/bashing were overdone at that point; to some extent I still think that's true, too. The amount of work, sincerity, and good-natured fun that's going into the project, though, won me over when I checked in with it a few videos later. This is how you make the most out of an idea that's already been done: you do it as damn well as you possibly can.
I think my favourite so far has been their overview of trends in YA book covers (like "girl going places") and seeing all the entries for their cover contest.
Comments
With video you can get away with just making a few. Sequelitis guy has only made a handful, and is pretty popular with a minimal output. A web-comic needs to maintain output. It doesn't need to be a high level of output, but it needs to be greater than zero. More is still better. Penny Arcade's never-ending consistent run has benefitted them greatly. Megatokyo's intermittent output was able to keep the ball rolling for a long ass time. But there are plenty of once-pouplar, long-running comics that disappeared from all radars shortly after they ended. Atomic Robo used to be brought to you buy Brian Clevinger of 8-bit Theater. Now he's Brian Clevinger of Atomic Robo and wtf is 8-bit Theater?
Another thing that is important is face time. Not all videos have an actual person appearing on screen, but many do. Even if it just someone's voice, that person gets fame and notoriety for themselves. A comic artist can only get this at a convention when sitting at a booth with their art on display. At MoCCA Kate Beaton's booth has a long ass line. When she walks around to talk to people, almost nobody approaches her. It is partially out of politeness on the part of those who recognize her, but mostly that her work is more famous than her personality. Mike & Jerry go to great lengths to promote themselves by appearing everywhere, and still people who know their work don't know them.
But yes, the majority of stuff put out isn't very good. I happen to like it since I am part of the generation that is growing up with it, but there's a lot of trite out there.
Certain people from the website do completely circle their professional and free time around these websites, which is probably why they are so on edge and really want to try and do as much as they can to succeed through this way of living.
And then, in a Red Letter Media review recently (I think The Dark Knight Rises) they cut to a guy talking... and it was the guy from the other videos. But now he's not a serial killer. He's just a guy sitting on a chair. Boring!
I was instantly annoyed at the Nostalgia Critic video because I was forced to look at a very annoying face with a guy behind it trying to be as annoying as possible.
As for RLM: the Plinkett reviews are still the same as they always were. The newest is the Titanic review here. What you're referring to with the guys in the chairs is Half in the Bag, their other show. That's a more traditional style Roger and Ebert style review show, only done with their particular brand of humour, analysis, and sketches.
Though, to be fair, the Plinkett reviews do have a specific look for the Plinkett character, and have since at least the Episode II review. He's featured on their merchandise and he's used for videos that tease new reviews and such. I think that image of him on the red background has been in a few of the actual reviews, too.
TL;DR: I like both approaches fine for their own reasons. If you don't, that's fine too.
Also seeing him would have made the videos no less recognizable. The voice acting is all that's needed. Unfortunately for tgwtg videos, the acting I saw was all just terrible. As I don't watch TV, I'm not used to seeing acting that bad.
And I checked out the Moulin Rouge video from the Nostalgia Critic. Or about 3 minutes of it. Hint to anyone wanting to negatively criticize a musical: if you're going to do it in the form of a musical, your music has to be BETTER than the music in the musical! And if you're going to criticize acting in movie, your acting has to be BETTER.
I don't mind spending less on production, of course, but if you're complaining about lack of talent, and wanting kudos for showing off your own talent, then you have to impress me more than the thing you're complaining about impressed me, or else I rightly conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.
On the other hand, if you're not trying to impress me with your talent, and instead just do a good review, I'll go with that no problem. You know, just like every other critic. Do an entertaining review, that's enough. Don't complain about Moulin Rouge being chocked full of cliche when reviewing a musical in the form of a musical is one of the most cliched choice possible.
That is about it, the Bro-team stuff is a bit more interesting but not massively on the radar. That siad for all of this there are scores of people that just churn out videos of the same game that everyone plays doing the same thing. For instance, how many Mine craft lets plays are there which is just people failing, squawking and generally being children for hours upon hours.
Anyway, Luke: fair enough. I read you wrong when I thought you were saying that you preferred not seeing the reviewer to the exclusion of others. Mea culpa. :c
I do like the Moulin Rouge review, mainly because I really liked the sense of fun I got from the producers involved in it. Do I agree with their take on it? Some parts yes, some parts no. Are they as talented as Baz Luhrmann, Ewan McGregor, Nicole Kidman, or heck, even that villain guy? Not even close. But I do find their enthusiasm infectious, and while their adapted songs aren't that great, they're cute enough to amuse me and they get their points across. For me, it doesn't matter as much that they're not as accomplished, because if someone has a point about the movie, good or bad, it can still stand apart from whether the critic can replicate/surpass it or not.
That said, you do have a point about critiquing in a manner that's meant to garner attention and kudos for the person doing the critique, and I'm not sure why that doesn't bother me personally when I watch these videos. Maybe that's just a difference in taste again. You said so yourself that you have really high standards for acting, so you know very clearly what sits well with you and what doesn't. I might just have different standards. I've always worried from a young age that I couldn't pinpoint bad acting as easily as most others could, so I would believe that. For example, I've never had as many problems with Keanu Reeves as most; I know objectively the things he does wrong, but those things don't register as strongly for me when I actually watch him. I guess I'm just not really sensitive enough to tell in a lot of cases. I wondered (and still wonder) why that is for me, and I still haven't quite figured it out.
Sooo, yeah. Not really much else to say there, I guess, if it comes down to that. If you groove on the style, great. If you don't, you don't, and that's fine too. Again, with any luck, once the boom phase for this sort of media dies down a bit, the amateurs who are sticking with it will polish up to higher levels of production, and people who already have higher production skills will get involved, same as with podcasts and such. That'll be good for viewers in both camps.
(Side note for comparison's sake, I'd recommend having a look at Brows Held High's review of The Man Who Fell to Earth as an example of a better musical review. Kyle Kallgren has better pipes than your average internet reviewer, and his review doesn't tear the film down like the Moulin Rouge one does. Pokes fun at its oddities, yes, but overall he seems to respect it, so his review acts as a complement to the film rather than an "I can do better than you" kind of thing.)
Personally I've never had a problem with Keanu Reeves either, I've always thought he did a good enough job at whatever role he's been given.
To bring it back to Red Letter Media and Plinkett, what made the Prequel reviews so fun is that they were more entertaining than the movies they were critiquing, and told better stories within the limits of their production values. What I'm trying to say is that the production team used their limitations to the full, and to their advantage. Unlike George Lucas.
But in the Moulin Rouge episode, they begin with a copy of the opening of the movie, and don't do a good job with it. Or they didn't do as bad as a job as they should have done with it. If it had been paper puppets in from of a screen? Funny. But green screens and bombastic music is trying to ape the very thing you're about to slag off. Then they cut to a badly decorated set... Not in terms of money spent, but when they cut to an upwards looking shot, all I could focus on was where the papers stuck to the wall ended. Couldn't they have continued the paper up the wall to the ceiling, or reframed the shot?
What I'm trying to say is that while criticizing a movie they are betraying the fact that they know less about making a movie than those who made the movie... and yet trying to appear clever. You don't get to do it both ways.
Be a professional critic.
Or do parodies of bad movies in a bad way to make fun of the movie.
Mixing the two means you're not bring funny enough and not bring professional enough.
A little later in the Moulin Rouge video, though, he does make a good point about the frenetic editing of certain scenes making it difficult to appreciate the aesthetics of such bombastic and intricate shot setups. In a movie that is almost entirely style over substance like that, this is a major problem when it comes up. He then goes on to cut a montage of clips from the movie with other random clips in an imitation of the editing style in the scene, and I think that works fairly decently. Could have been done with just a bit more finesse, but the point is communicated, competent editing skill is displayed, and it got a chuckle out of me.
I would agree that in general, the NC is pretty hit or miss. Sometimes he really hits and sometimes he really, really misses, whether it be through slipshod cinematography, forced gags, misuse/misunderstanding of logic in narrative, or whatever else. I think what got me hooked on him in the first place was mainly just the content he covered, a lot of which was either new to me at the time or I just hadn't been reminded of in years (hence the appropriate title "Nostalgia Critic"). He and the AVGN are pretty much the prime examples of "right place, right time."
What kept me around after that novelty had worn off, I think, was a now-comfortable familiarity with the character, my continuing self-education about 80s and 90s pop culture, any good points the Critic still made, and the one or two laughs I still got per episode. I'd liken him to that one loud friend some people have who thinks he's really funny, and sometimes is. Even though he can be annoying as all get-out sometimes, he's still your friend because you've known him a long time, you share in-jokes, you enjoy his energy, and you care about what's going on in his life. But you also wouldn't be surprised when someone meets him for the first time and is instantly turned off by the bad jokes and obnoxiousness.
Sorry if this is rambly. I think this turned into less answering you and more me working out for myself why I still like the NC despite acknowledging his many, many flaws.
Out of curiosity, what other reviewers/episodes of stuff did you try? While the NC is definitely spotty, I would stand much more firmly behind shows like Todd's Pop Song Reviews, Brows Held High, or the Nostalgia Chick's more recent work.
And I NEED to see Zettai Karen Children: The Unlimited.
JewWario has left Channel Awesome and it has to be one of the most bizarre because he is one of the most level-headed, cool, and kind personalities on the whole website. I know he has a lot of projects, but it is pretty sad that he is leaving.
I have to call out Nostalgia Chick on her whole "50 Shades of Green" idea. Mostly because...it's actually been done before. Done by NSFW Podcast Host's Brian Brushwood and Justin Robert Young, they created and published a parody known as "The Diamond Club" and released it through Amazon to sell. Maybe the Chick wants to go one step further and get it published, but again, it lacks punch of being special if it has been done. Similar to how everyone was criticizing "Demo Reel" for having the same plot as "Be Kind Rewind." Proof: http://www.dailydot.com/culture/diamond-club-crowdsourced-50-shades-spoof/
And the last is a statement on the content, with Linkara. Love his original plotlines being worked into his reviews, but with his newest arc, I've really started to notice the flaw in his stories. The other actors he gets, especially this new one playing the Gunslinger, is flat out bad. Do all you want to question the acting talents of the hosts like Linkara and The Critic, but when they get on extras who just aren't up to the plate, boy can that take you out of the mood.
Just because someone else did something similar doesn't mean someone can't try the same thing. The second to do it, just has to do it better or different.
Linkara has a lot of flaws, especially in the exposition department, but I chalk it up to the format he has to write in. Unlike comics, novels or just a show that is just storyline, he has to do it in a review show. He has gotten better at writing, but he still has to learn how to better use those constraints to his advantage.
I didn't think Gunslinger was that bad.
I think my favourite so far has been their overview of trends in YA book covers (like "girl going places") and seeing all the entries for their cover contest.