I have no idea who Chris Stuckmann is and I don't have any idea who you are. This all feels like overhearing a random conversation of a neighbouring table at a restaurant. It's kind of enjoyable.
What's hilarious is I watched that review, went "Damn, L take," then immediately watched his next video. I had no idea there was even drama around this lmfao
That’s the internet for ya lol, people will kick equally big fusses over tiny “transgressions” like this and predator accusations. It’s fantastic, but also fantastically volatile, manic, out of touch, and outright ridiculous sometimes, it’s quite the double edged sword.
My favourite part about this drama was seeing a bunch of RUclipsrs try to gang up on him when they've never accomplished anything noteworthy in their lives and have made nothing but garbage that no one has seen in the filmmaking industry such as Critical Drinker. The definition of insecurity.
Месяц назад+10
@@ColeSATurner don't get me started on Drinker. Most nauseating voice on the whole platform. 🤣
One thing that particularly annoys me is when people allege that Chris just made his video so that people will go easy on his film when it comes out, even though he explicitly says that he is privileged as an indie filmmaker to not have studios breathing down his neck. Like…did these people actually watch the video?
100% agreed with everything you said. Critical feedback is important, but it’s not one size fits all. There isn’t a “correct” or ”incorrect” way to go about talking about art. You can approach a discussion anyway you’d like. And with Chris being a director, it makes sense to me why he’d steer clear from the dog piling that takes up 80-90% of film discussion on the internet. Glad nuance still exists in this discussion
@@chickenandksivideoreviewer9739 He shouldn't be allowed to make reviews about select films he cares about/chooses and is being honest on just because he doesn't get enjoyment making videos talking about films he thought were bad and decided to stop doing so...???
Месяц назад+1
@@ColeSATurner "He shouldn't be allowed to" sounds a bit aggressive, don't you think? He can do what he wants with his channel.
It is really simple. A filmmaker cannot talk about other filmmakers because Hollywood is build on relationships. That is why usually when you watch interviews, everyone is talk positively about other people.
yes, but even then, chris said a year before he tried doing so that he doesnt enjoy making movie reviews like how he used to anymore. he only enjoys talking about films he really cares about passionately in a positive way. his explanation and reasoning mightve been poor but theres nothing wrong with it. its his choice. the reason why i unsubbed is because i just dont find his content entertaining anymore but i wish him the best.
@@benjamindover4337 No film is perfect, it's important and interesting to see someone's subjective viewpoint on the good and the bad, it's all about balance, that's life. I understand why Chris did it and I wish him well, I just don't find his new pivot to how he sees films, interesting. I liked him for his broad, honest perspective, it used to entertain me and inform me.
I used to watch Stuckmann a lot a few years ago. He obviously loves movies but he's got such a dry, bland sort of personality that I just got bored. Add the relentlessly predictable positivity and it makes for an awfully lifeless 15 mins watching a video. I understand his new approach and why he's taking it but if you're gonna be a YT creator, you're gonna be in the firing line.
Most RUclipsrs who review movies are on the “scandal” and “sensationalist” side of that. Chris stuckmann is the INTELLECTUAL of RUclips reviewers, he knows about them very well, he is honest about it and doesn’t want to force his popularity. Listen to him more and Critical Drinker less. One knows without trying, the other neither knows or tries but wants to maximize views on his channel. That’s the truth.
The reason Chris didn't make his Madame Web video a non-negative review subtly, but had to state it out loud: he wanted to address the problem of negativity overall on RUclips. I believe this was the wrong move: Madame Web is not an example of a movie that wasn't treated fairly. But I completely agreed with his stance on people crapping on movies instead of having thought-provoking discussions on why certain parts of movies don't impact us like the movies intended. As for him declaring he won't ever be negative on his channel: I hope he comes around and lays down some low-rated movie reviews, because a lot of movies deserve a low rating, because, studio-interference withstanding, a lot of filmmakers still pull through with the project with value at the end.
What really pissed me off was seeing many youtubers with very large amounts of subscribers like the critical drinker went after him, I can understand his fans and smaller RUclipsrs going after him but the ones that have thousands of subscribers, when he’s one of the kindiest people on RUclips is despicable
Critical Drinker is a talentless irrelevant hack and trash RUclipsr who's proven countless times that he doesn't know anything about films or film history and has a double-standard with his points on films if it aligns with his views, such as saying you shouldn't praise a film solely for its messaging if it's bad, but then praises Sound of Freedom. Chris Stuckmann's one film is already more than he's ever done and if you've seen the trash he's written that even his own fan base clowned on him for making. I'm sure Chris could care less about it.
i think drinker is just depressed by the fact that hes failed miserably to carve himself out a career in the movie industry or enough money off of yt to quit his daytime job and took it out on a fellow yter who has already accomplished a zillion times more with their debut film made thanks to an online crowd funder. 😭 must suck. just like how miniladd lost his mind after terroriser starred in a more prolific movie than he ever did in his acting debut after mini acted for decades.
@@nowitstimetosee18 he still has a day time job? with 2 m subscribers I thought he'd be better, guess that's because due to his content, no sponsor wants to pay him
@@fernandodecarlosmalcher7977 youtube doesnt pay as well as you think. even if you have a million subs or more. especially nowadays with expenses, the ad-pocalypse, and many youtubers on the platform nowadays having that many subs and views. you need to get a lot more per video to actually make a living off of it than he does. its definitely a stable condition and where he can pay editors and whatnot but nothing more than that where he has the luxury to quit his other job. thats why hes still trying to make it in the film industry, but he cant, because he has no talent. all of his films suck. i saw shelby oaks at fantasia. it wasnt anything special and had a lot of tropes but it was alright overall. already better than anything drinker has ever made. which is extremely sad. especially given the previous indie films chris has made.
I unsubscribed from Stuckmann’s channel way back when he first stated his pivot to more “positive” content. I don’t have infinite time or money, so I use film criticism as a way to determine where I want those precious resources to go. I don’t care if his ethos that making movies is hard and he doesn’t want to judge them harshly. That’s fine for him but it makes his videos worthless to me. I don’t need the opinions of someone who is always going to make excuses for bad (or even just disposable) art. That said, I clicked this video to see what the controversy was and I’m glad this was just about a bad opinion of his and not that he was caught talking to minors or something.
I had always assumed that Chris's decision to have his channel be less negative stemmed from the challenges and barriers he overcame when trying to get shelby oaks made (a positive perspective, it was an empathetic perspective). I had never considered the blacklisted possibility as a serious concern, although it does make sense, in hindsight. I remember the update video from Chris were he stated how difficult it was to get an original script invested in or make get something made that was not immediately comparable to an existing successful film. Which must have been so irritating, and somewhat illuminating for Chris who enjoyed the criticism of unoriginal films (which undoubtedly still took effort to make) but were not stand-outs, none the less (my fav film channels did the same, YMS, RtMM, IHE, and Chris). which would undoubtedly demoralize a filmmaker who may start to feel his efforts toward originality were in vain. I cant wait for my MP4 of Shelby oaks (via kickstarter) and i would like hilariocitys to come back, but i understand if they dont.
same thing, i really decide to watch movies when he talks good about it, i dont want a review, i want to know is it worth watching it also I Miss Pretty Much It reviews and TheFlickPick reviews
Sure you can. He’s stated he wants to only celebrate film, and will only be reviewing one’s he likes. So if he doesn’t have a review of a movie, you can assume he didn’t like it/didn’t see it. It’s his channel, he can do as he pleases. If you really wanna see someone tear into a film for 10 minutes, there are plenty of other channels that do that. It’s fine if people don’t like that/want to unsubscribe, but the dogpiling is childish (not accusing you of doing that)
@@seventhamendmentguy6681 It's not about tearing into things it's about being a credible movie reviewer. He could have just stopped making them and focused on other types of videos, but he wants the best of both worlds
@@chickenandksivideoreviewer9739 I think we just gotta agree to disagree here. To me, he would have lost credibility if he started giving movies he didn’t like positive reviews. I don’t mind him abstaining from reviewing them, that tells me all I need to know: he didn’t like it/wasn’t interested enough to see it. I understand what you’re saying though, I just don’t see it that way.
That isn't what he said. He's been critical of bad films and still states when he doesn't like a film and can point out why if he wants. He just said he won't talk about them on his channel anymore because he wants to focus on promoting the best ones in his free time while working on his own films and meeting people in the industry after spending years doing so and being burnt out by it. And yes, he can. He can do what he wants. There's no making rules to what you can and can't do with art or as a reviewer. That's like me saying you shouldn't post RUclips comments if they aren't more than 10+ sentences long. Such a foolish comment. It really sounds like you're only acting this way because you never cared as much about Chris Stuckmann. If your favourite RUclipsr who you looked up to decided to do this then you would be on here defended them like your life depends on it, because there's nothing to complain about. It's just him deciding to do something else with his life and semi-retiring from movie reviewing on RUclips, outside of when he wants to give notice to a smaller film or a film he thought was great that needs more eyes on it.
What did you prove you? You didn't prove anything other than proving yourself a fool to defend someone you don't personally know. You literally said you don't know the guy but base your opinion on his work. People like you defend people like dr disrespect and other people who only project the personality they want you to see while they use you as the product for their own endgame
@RooDish how is it a weird take ? Defending someone you don't know is not the same as defending someone you know. Criticizing someone you don't know is not the same as criticizing someone you don't know . Jesus christ its obvious your parents failed to teach you basic life lessons
Месяц назад+6
@@theredmachete5877 "criticizing someone you don't know is not the same as criticizing someone you don't know", wanna try again? 🤣
I have no idea who Chris Stuckmann is and I don't have any idea who you are. This all feels like overhearing a random conversation of a neighbouring table at a restaurant. It's kind of enjoyable.
What's hilarious is I watched that review, went "Damn, L take," then immediately watched his next video. I had no idea there was even drama around this lmfao
That’s the internet for ya lol, people will kick equally big fusses over tiny “transgressions” like this and predator accusations. It’s fantastic, but also fantastically volatile, manic, out of touch, and outright ridiculous sometimes, it’s quite the double edged sword.
i think is so idiotic that people attack him, everybody changes, times moves, family, profession, etc
My favourite part about this drama was seeing a bunch of RUclipsrs try to gang up on him when they've never accomplished anything noteworthy in their lives and have made nothing but garbage that no one has seen in the filmmaking industry such as Critical Drinker. The definition of insecurity.
@@ColeSATurner don't get me started on Drinker. Most nauseating voice on the whole platform. 🤣
One thing that particularly annoys me is when people allege that Chris just made his video so that people will go easy on his film when it comes out, even though he explicitly says that he is privileged as an indie filmmaker to not have studios breathing down his neck.
Like…did these people actually watch the video?
100% agreed with everything you said. Critical feedback is important, but it’s not one size fits all. There isn’t a “correct” or ”incorrect” way to go about talking about art. You can approach a discussion anyway you’d like. And with Chris being a director, it makes sense to me why he’d steer clear from the dog piling that takes up 80-90% of film discussion on the internet. Glad nuance still exists in this discussion
That's all well and good, but then he shouldn't review things. Doesn't make sense
@@chickenandksivideoreviewer9739 He shouldn't be allowed to make reviews about select films he cares about/chooses and is being honest on just because he doesn't get enjoyment making videos talking about films he thought were bad and decided to stop doing so...???
@@ColeSATurner "He shouldn't be allowed to" sounds a bit aggressive, don't you think? He can do what he wants with his channel.
It is really simple. A filmmaker cannot talk about other filmmakers because Hollywood is build on relationships. That is why usually when you watch interviews, everyone is talk positively about other people.
yes, but even then, chris said a year before he tried doing so that he doesnt enjoy making movie reviews like how he used to anymore. he only enjoys talking about films he really cares about passionately in a positive way. his explanation and reasoning mightve been poor but theres nothing wrong with it. its his choice. the reason why i unsubbed is because i just dont find his content entertaining anymore but i wish him the best.
His current amount of views are tanking , but hes still has over 2m subs. Ppl are not really unsubscribing but are not watching him as much
I got a bit bored of his 100% positive tone. Where is the real criticism?
Criticism is not about being negative. That's called complaining.
@@benjamindover4337 No film is perfect, it's important and interesting to see someone's subjective viewpoint on the good and the bad, it's all about balance, that's life. I understand why Chris did it and I wish him well, I just don't find his new pivot to how he sees films, interesting. I liked him for his broad, honest perspective, it used to entertain me and inform me.
I used to watch Stuckmann a lot a few years ago. He obviously loves movies but he's got such a dry, bland sort of personality that I just got bored. Add the relentlessly predictable positivity and it makes for an awfully lifeless 15 mins watching a video.
I understand his new approach and why he's taking it but if you're gonna be a YT creator, you're gonna be in the firing line.
he only started to become really bland and boring in 2018-2019. before that he was such a funny and awesome critic
Most RUclipsrs who review movies are on the “scandal” and “sensationalist” side of that. Chris stuckmann is the INTELLECTUAL of RUclips reviewers, he knows about them very well, he is honest about it and doesn’t want to force his popularity. Listen to him more and Critical Drinker less. One knows without trying, the other neither knows or tries but wants to maximize views on his channel. That’s the truth.
The reason Chris didn't make his Madame Web video a non-negative review subtly, but had to state it out loud: he wanted to address the problem of negativity overall on RUclips. I believe this was the wrong move: Madame Web is not an example of a movie that wasn't treated fairly. But I completely agreed with his stance on people crapping on movies instead of having thought-provoking discussions on why certain parts of movies don't impact us like the movies intended. As for him declaring he won't ever be negative on his channel: I hope he comes around and lays down some low-rated movie reviews, because a lot of movies deserve a low rating, because, studio-interference withstanding, a lot of filmmakers still pull through with the project with value at the end.
Great wink to Resident Evil
What really pissed me off was seeing many youtubers with very large amounts of subscribers like the critical drinker went after him, I can understand his fans and smaller RUclipsrs going after him but the ones that have thousands of subscribers, when he’s one of the kindiest people on RUclips is despicable
Critical Drinker is a talentless irrelevant hack and trash RUclipsr who's proven countless times that he doesn't know anything about films or film history and has a double-standard with his points on films if it aligns with his views, such as saying you shouldn't praise a film solely for its messaging if it's bad, but then praises Sound of Freedom. Chris Stuckmann's one film is already more than he's ever done and if you've seen the trash he's written that even his own fan base clowned on him for making. I'm sure Chris could care less about it.
i think drinker is just depressed by the fact that hes failed miserably to carve himself out a career in the movie industry or enough money off of yt to quit his daytime job and took it out on a fellow yter who has already accomplished a zillion times more with their debut film made thanks to an online crowd funder. 😭 must suck. just like how miniladd lost his mind after terroriser starred in a more prolific movie than he ever did in his acting debut after mini acted for decades.
@@nowitstimetosee18 he still has a day time job? with 2 m subscribers I thought he'd be better, guess that's because due to his content, no sponsor wants to pay him
@@fernandodecarlosmalcher7977 youtube doesnt pay as well as you think. even if you have a million subs or more. especially nowadays with expenses, the ad-pocalypse, and many youtubers on the platform nowadays having that many subs and views. you need to get a lot more per video to actually make a living off of it than he does. its definitely a stable condition and where he can pay editors and whatnot but nothing more than that where he has the luxury to quit his other job. thats why hes still trying to make it in the film industry, but he cant, because he has no talent. all of his films suck. i saw shelby oaks at fantasia. it wasnt anything special and had a lot of tropes but it was alright overall. already better than anything drinker has ever made. which is extremely sad. especially given the previous indie films chris has made.
@@nowitstimetosee18 Oh ok, well that explains why he's recently uploaded so many videos and why his grifting has gotten even more desperate
I unsubscribed from Stuckmann’s channel way back when he first stated his pivot to more “positive” content. I don’t have infinite time or money, so I use film criticism as a way to determine where I want those precious resources to go. I don’t care if his ethos that making movies is hard and he doesn’t want to judge them harshly. That’s fine for him but it makes his videos worthless to me. I don’t need the opinions of someone who is always going to make excuses for bad (or even just disposable) art.
That said, I clicked this video to see what the controversy was and I’m glad this was just about a bad opinion of his and not that he was caught talking to minors or something.
Wait what? What are you talking about? He got caught talking to minors??
@@ethantinsley8185no not Chris. Another person in the film review RUclips space. But we do not mention their name.
Seriously though who are we referring to
I thought you were going to defend him using two n's to spell his last name
Can you clarify?
I had always assumed that Chris's decision to have his channel be less negative stemmed from the challenges and barriers he overcame when trying to get shelby oaks made (a positive perspective, it was an empathetic perspective). I had never considered the blacklisted possibility as a serious concern, although it does make sense, in hindsight. I remember the update video from Chris were he stated how difficult it was to get an original script invested in or make get something made that was not immediately comparable to an existing successful film. Which must have been so irritating, and somewhat illuminating for Chris who enjoyed the criticism of unoriginal films (which undoubtedly still took effort to make) but were not stand-outs, none the less (my fav film channels did the same, YMS, RtMM, IHE, and Chris). which would undoubtedly demoralize a filmmaker who may start to feel his efforts toward originality were in vain. I cant wait for my MP4 of Shelby oaks (via kickstarter) and i would like hilariocitys to come back, but i understand if they dont.
same thing, i really decide to watch movies when he talks good about it, i dont want a review, i want to know is it worth watching it
also I Miss Pretty Much It reviews and TheFlickPick reviews
What did Chris do that he needed defense? 😂
Watch the video, you'll see why.
Good video
Completely agree! The backlash left me dumbfounded. It was massively blown out of proportion.
You just can't be a reviewer if you're concerned about being too critical. He needs to pick a lane
Sure you can. He’s stated he wants to only celebrate film, and will only be reviewing one’s he likes. So if he doesn’t have a review of a movie, you can assume he didn’t like it/didn’t see it. It’s his channel, he can do as he pleases. If you really wanna see someone tear into a film for 10 minutes, there are plenty of other channels that do that. It’s fine if people don’t like that/want to unsubscribe, but the dogpiling is childish (not accusing you of doing that)
@@seventhamendmentguy6681 It's not about tearing into things it's about being a credible movie reviewer. He could have just stopped making them and focused on other types of videos, but he wants the best of both worlds
@@chickenandksivideoreviewer9739 I think we just gotta agree to disagree here. To me, he would have lost credibility if he started giving movies he didn’t like positive reviews. I don’t mind him abstaining from reviewing them, that tells me all I need to know: he didn’t like it/wasn’t interested enough to see it. I understand what you’re saying though, I just don’t see it that way.
@@chickenandksivideoreviewer9739 FACTS!!
That isn't what he said. He's been critical of bad films and still states when he doesn't like a film and can point out why if he wants. He just said he won't talk about them on his channel anymore because he wants to focus on promoting the best ones in his free time while working on his own films and meeting people in the industry after spending years doing so and being burnt out by it. And yes, he can. He can do what he wants. There's no making rules to what you can and can't do with art or as a reviewer. That's like me saying you shouldn't post RUclips comments if they aren't more than 10+ sentences long. Such a foolish comment. It really sounds like you're only acting this way because you never cared as much about Chris Stuckmann. If your favourite RUclipsr who you looked up to decided to do this then you would be on here defended them like your life depends on it, because there's nothing to complain about. It's just him deciding to do something else with his life and semi-retiring from movie reviewing on RUclips, outside of when he wants to give notice to a smaller film or a film he thought was great that needs more eyes on it.
If you don't know someone personally you shouldn't make a video defending them
Happy to have proven you wrong. 🤭
What did you prove you? You didn't prove anything other than proving yourself a fool to defend someone you don't personally know. You literally said you don't know the guy but base your opinion on his work. People like you defend people like dr disrespect and other people who only project the personality they want you to see while they use you as the product for their own endgame
That seems like a weird take. Do you also think that people should only be able to criticise others that they personally know?
@RooDish how is it a weird take ? Defending someone you don't know is not the same as defending someone you know. Criticizing someone you don't know is not the same as criticizing someone you don't know . Jesus christ its obvious your parents failed to teach you basic life lessons
@@theredmachete5877 "criticizing someone you don't know is not the same as criticizing someone you don't know", wanna try again? 🤣