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."
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@@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
@@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.
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."
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.
I used to watch him, years ago. But I never saw his videos as "reviews" exactly. More like short descriptions of movies that came out recently. I don't always get around to reading synopses, so it was a convenient way to decide if a movie's premise sounds interesting just by listening to his video on 2x speed. But when he started adding weird sanctimonious shit and also disavowing his more entertaining past content, I unsubscribed. Jeremy Jahns is better for the type of content I'm looking for anyway
The thing is, I don’t care if Chris wants to glaze movies and not actually review them. What ticks me off is how he has this “holier than thou” attitude towards it. He talks like he thinks any person that negatively reviews a movie is a bad person. He’s lecturing his audience like we were just called to the principal’s office and need to be taught how to not shoot spitballs in class.
Actually, him pointing out good things in bad movies would be a good niche i would maybe consifer to watch. Could be good content. But his approach is just garbage.
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 RUclips 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 miss the old Stuckmann. Straight from the gold Stuckmann. The always bold Stuckmann. Set on his goals Stuckmann. I hate the new Stuckmann. The bad reviews Stuckmann. Spaz for the views Stuckmann. Scared to be rude Stuckmann.
he's perfectly fine with any and all criticism of a movie as long as it's only levelled at the producers. Creatives are Godlike, perfect and infallible.
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.
I use the “Who Killed Captain Alex” test nowadays. If the movie doesnt make me entertained as much if not more than Who Killed Captain Alex, a Ugandan movie made by a village with cardboard guns and an unrelated video joker and a $200 budget, then the movie is not worth my time. Just tell a fun story
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.
That is an interesting point. If he just ignored the movie’s existence I think his audience would question it a bit, but for the most part he could just move on. Its not like as a critic you are Required to watch every movie that goes to theatres, especially if you publish one or two reviews a week.
I remember it. He basically came out and said it wasn't his type of movie and wasn't therefore wasn't going go see it. He didn't insult anybody, though he did say the effects looked somewhat bad and that was really it. It was a reasonable response. But it being Ghostbusters 2016 he was immediately labeled a sexist and people tried to drag him down for not wanting to see it. I don't think he ever responded to the controversy and came out the other end intact by not engaging with the culture war that surrounded that movie. A culture war that was being actively fueled by Sony at that.
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.
I will say this, it's a decent premise. Girl looks for possessed sister in the woods. I just don't think he has the raw sharpened edge to do anything that's actually morbid. The Evil Dead remake showed full dismemberment and tree rapture.
@@ShockgueyThe ARG before was cool though, little generic, but I always like when there’s a real life, immersive interactive element like that. If the movie is bad (and if he continues on this path it likely will be) I hope the ARG isn’t as dragged down into mud.
So his argument is: "Hey, these film makers worked really hard on this and they had a difficult boss, so I'm not going to critique it." Well, yeah, Chris. That's true. But they also got paid for it. And you're a film critic.
Chris Stuckmann simps: OH MY GOD, CHRIS DIDN'T LIKE THE MOVIE, WHY DO YOU CARE? Me: Yes. He didn't like the movie. The problem is he wasn't willing to call out how bad it was, instead pussyfooting around the issue, and nebulously blaming the studios, which nobody inside his realm is going to be pissed at. Yes, studio interference is a thing. But Chris is claiming that the studio interference is the only problem Madame Web, and any movie, faces. Completely ignoring how movies like The Room that are completely independently backed, fail miserably, and how directors can in fact be at fault, like when Tom Hooper directed cats, and was being an abusive asshole who refused to work within the medium of Cats. The reality is you just don't want to hear someone insult Madame Web, because you're scared of negativity, so rather than ignore the negative reviews, you just want Chris to validate your toxic positivity, and watch grifters "Call out" the negative critics you don't like in order to validate your opinions. Chris Stuckmann simps: ...well Chris Stuckmann is still my senpai, because he validates my opinions! So na na boo boo!
@jeremyusreevu237 That is the reality of the situation with Chris and yet film essayists and defenders are willingly being blind to it because Chris is “nice”. Yes because “nice” is all that matters to these clowns. It’s never the content of the words or based off any kind of research. Could you argue Mauler and company were a bit mean to Chris? Sure. But this is a very special F up Chris made, given the appropriate backlash he also got. He earned this and managed to destroy any credibility he once had.
I guarantee most people rushing to Chris' defense don't actually value what he has to say. They're doing it because MauLer and Co are calling him out, and they have a need to fight the "Big, Bad Longman and his negative friends."
Chris Stuckmann explaining that it's 'Fine' that RedLetterMedia made fun of him while making a whole video about it.. All I can think is: "They-Ask-You-How-You-Are-And-You-Have-To-Say-That-You're-Fine-But-You're-Not-Really-Fine-And-You-just-Can't-Go-Into-It-Because-They-just-Won't-Understand--"
@Frieza-yg4zp It's originally said by actress Katy Perry on a reality tv program and turned into a whole meme. RUclips-searching 'they ask you how you are and you just have to say you're fine' will bring up tons of uses for when you just put a smile on to hide the pain. :D
Hey, to be fair, Courage might be afraid, but he always faces his fears and deals with it when he needs to. Also that shit he saw was scary, I dont blame the little dude
Hilarious part is I doubt Chris is ever gonna work in the industry. His videos are painfully basic, his critiques aren't especially insightful or interesting, his writing isn't much better nor his camera work, there's really nothing he can offer to the film industry.
The writers for Madame Webb were Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless. Their writing credits include, Dracula Untold (2014); The Last Witch Hunter (2015); Gods of Egypt (2016) and Morbius (2022), literally all of them were failures critically and financially. There was NO studio interference, Sony trusted them way too much. Both writers said they had no idea who Madame Webb was and they further articulated the incredibly innacurate statement that there wasn't much of a background to her story. How they still managed to get hired in hollywood is the true mystery.
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.
Josh Trank clashed with the original Fant-four-stick writer, apparently, who wanted to keep it closer to the source material, but Trank, having no ties to F4, just wanted to make Chronicle 2.0, and sabbotaged multiple attempts to mediate and compromise by going behind everyone's back. He also took out his frustrations on the cast and generally acted petty. That's one side I heard.
Quite funny you bring that up, since he trashed that movie quite hard in his review back when it came out. I wonder if he'd try to defend it in some way today.
That's not a fair comparison. Courage is the type of person who, despite his anxiety, would not only participate in a local film making competition but would call out his neighbors' (such as the Foo guy) crappy productions while they're being screened.
It's shocking how Chris has become some ignorant at the idea that a bad movie happens only because studios got too involved. Chris's infamous "Zod's Snapped Neck" response wasn't directed towards the studio but David S Goyer and Zack Snyder who wrote and directed how that scene planned out originally, WB had nothing to do with it. Why is he pretending or assuming a bad film isn't at fault of the creators involved?
Superman killed Zod three times in DC comics. So brutally once that Spectre confronted that with Superman. So Zack Snyder and David Goyer are absolutely right. Man of Steel is the best and most comics accurate Superman movie ever. 10/10. People who criticize Man of Steel and Zack Snyder, have no clue about DC comics and nostalgic idiot of Christopher Reeves.
Comics fans are so gay. "The comics did it so it's okay", simp. Just because A writer of A comic wrote something into canon, doesn't make it automatically good or acceptable. Get over yourself.
@@browndestroyer3016 I liked Man of Steel, and was more neutral on BVS, but Chris's rewrite was just.... painful. I actually did like Man of Steel's take on superman. That being said, bit reductive to speak so negatively of Reeve's Superman, as there is some media presence of a similarly springy and bright sort of Superman. The animated cartoons of the 40s come to mind.
@@viddykhaos2896 I am going to be honest with you, with due respect, Man of Steel wasn't any take on Superman, it was from comics, Man of Steel movie was based on Superman American Alien, Superman Earth One, Superman Birthright, Superman Secret Origin, Superman Secret Identity, Man of Steel comics, Superman Grounded, New 52. Ben Affleck Batman was based on Dark Knight by Frank Miller, Batman Earth One, Superman/ Batman World's Finest (1990). Now Christopher Reeves was a take on Superman.
You’ll be happy to know that EFAP has released a reaction to Chris Stuckmann’s short film, Notes From Melanie. ruclips.net/video/QRBNPZPHhj8/видео.htmlsi=SiR3O1YL2D6fsm5S
@brandomm1708 I'd kindly say to those folks to actually do some research and come back. Because if they are anything like HiTop and everyone, they are ill-informed and lacking in their defense. Chris earned this with his bad his video was. He should have known better than to make it without doing an iota of research. If Chris had taken a more nuanced approach, if Chris had done research and made his criticisms more constructive, fair enough. But he didn't. He dumbly chose to wag the finger at us, trying to assert he's a "filmmaker" in the process. Yeah, ok. I do wish him luck on his movie but I personally can't look at him the same way as I used to in that he's destroyed any kind of credibility he once had.
@@Avarn388 you could especially tel they didn’t do their research because they were all saying “They talked about Stuckman for A WHOLE HOUR” when in the original video it was multiple hours. They pulled a long man bad, but didn’t even look at the video for 2 seconds to realize it was a highlight lmao
I would describe myself as a Stuckmann fan, even though i haven’t been a subscriber for a year or two. I won’t defend him here. His channel and formula of reviewing is completely pointless and meaningless.
As someone else said, as redacted as Joe's takes can be sometimes (ESPECIALLY when it comes to movies and TV) those are his takes and he'll stand by them. If he's criticizing a individual creative or entire studio, he won't do it in a passive roundabout way while pretending to be Mr. Positive.
@@denkerbosu3551 I agree, Angry Joe is clearly an eggshell walking type. You can tell he has takes that he's afraid to say, so he kind of projects it by digging at Other Joe who just doesn't seem to care about anything. I wouldn't be surprised that if Other Joe is his normie filter. Stuckmann is just pretentious if you ask me. He wants to be elitist, but just can't reach the level that he wants so he's stuck on the sideline.
Chris reminds me of the same type of cowardice that Game "Reviewers" do when they start blaming the producers and not the "Poor Dev Teams". If the game is bad, they are ALL to blame.
Anyone who has seen any Chris Stuckman review in the past knows he was a coward from the start. He has no problem gushing over a movie that is good and a box office hit. But if a movie is bad...... participation trophies for everyone!!!!
@@52BLUE on Sardonicast, Ralph weakly admitted that he thought "Joker" was an interesting film. IHE tore into him while YMS laughed. Please understand that IHE is seen, by their crowd, as wealthy and connected. Someone who could open doors. (I doubt that, but there you have it.) Anyway Ralph goes on to make a "Joker" video, which was meant to be, in part, a public denouncement of "Joker" in hopes of appeasing IHE and the rest of that faction. However, some part of Ralph did not actually want to cowtow like that. Yet another part of him still held a torch for real, hollywood work. So, he was a man at war with himself and that really came through in the video. There were schizoid moments, like describing "Citizen Kane" as a foundational film, then barking back at himself, saying that "Kane" is both boring and hard to watch. (Hey, I don't rate it very highly either.) but, this illustrates Ralphs actual perspective VS what he feared he would have to conform to. "movie maker" was in his name all along. I do not blame him or shame him, not one bit, but youtube was always meant to be a stepping stool for him. I am sorry to say that no amount of hustle or noterity was ever going to get him over that wall. Those dice were rolled a long time ago. Mike at RLM also thought that phone would ring one day, as many in hollywood, disney and television follow and like him. he has made his peace at this point. Stucmanized is the same, but I care for him least of all. he seems talentless and insincere.
If he reviews it honestly, he loses his much vaunted "access." If he reviews it dishonestly (his usual modus operandi) this particular film is so fucking shocking, it would expose him even to his hardcore fans.
I don't know about that, but I do think he believes all creatives, directors, writers, etc are hurt by any kind of criticism. Not true. Martin Scorsese liked when Ebert and Siskel were critical of his movies because it helped him improved for the next. Then you have someone like Richard Linkletter who said he doesn't pay attention to reviews because by the time they come out he has already moved on to his next film.
Stuckman sold out all his family and old friends claiming they kept him from being successful in life in order to garnish pity from his community. He has been a sell out for years, he'll do anything for fame and career success. You can see how this has sucked the soul from him. He is a husk of what he used to be.
Is there a term for what he's doing? It's actually far more insulting in a way. It's like a boss giving an employee a referral saying they are punctual and fulfilled their job description. Damned by faint praise?
@dragon1945 What if this an absolutely 1000IQ troll where he's slamming the video by saying 'I'm not going to review this cos I have absolutely noyhing good to say about it'? Cos I'm not sure I can think of a better way to make that point than what he did
I'm reminded of BennetTheSage's not-review of Violence Jack, in which his producer chewed him out for trying to get out of reviewing it: "YOU CANNOT DO THIS JOB WITHOUT OFFENDING SOMEONE!" An excerpt from a scripted skit which pertains to an audience's reaction in its original context, but applies just as well to how filmmakers might react to criticism.
I love movies so much but that doesn’t mean I’m cut out to be a filmmaker. Being a director is a lot like being an author, anyone can do it but only a few are really good at it. Unfortunately for Chris, this does seem to be a case of somebody who really loves movies but is not passionate or talented enough to become a director. I’m not saying this to be mean, I just think Chris needs some brutal honesty. He probably will never be a big director working in Hollywood. No matter how hard he tries, he’s just not good enough. We’ll see how good Shelby Oaks does but either Chris needs to get back his integrity and continue making genuine RUclips videos or just quit and find a real job.
Or he can just do both, and not worry that real criticism is going to hurt his career. Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith they are able to do both. Most people are able to take criticism and not see it as a personal attack. I do think Chris being raised in a cult may have heard his ability to take criticism. And for that I hope he gets help, for this career is going to kill him.
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
First of all, the only reason he's not "bashing" bad movies as he says (which to be fair, he's had this opinion for a while now) is because he's making his own film. I guarantee he's going to use that to springboard working into Hollywood, and to cover himself, he's stopped criticizing those studios' awful films. Second, what he says about it taking a lot of time and effort to make a film amounts to nothing when the film is bad. Look at Winnie the Pooh Blood and Honey, when reviewers talked bad about it, the production company fired back and talked about all the effort they put into it, and all the time they spent in the hot Summer. Well, the movie still looks like shit, so I guess it was all for nothing.
This was therapeutic. Thanks for making this. I appreciate the time taken put this together. It really ties together the emptiness I have been feeling from his channel.
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.
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.
"Oh, gee. I wanted spaghetti and meatballs, and I instead got steaming dog poo on my plate. But since I've peaked through the curtains into the kitchen I've essentially been in the trenches with these guys and understand everything. they're going through because of the higher ups! So not only am I gonna pay for the food, but also tip them! Cause I love food." //Stuckmann, probably.
Saying you can't criticize movies because you're now a director is a bit like a world leader saying "I can't criticise Idi Amin for eating people now I know how difficult being a leader is"
"Chris Stuckman is saying the only way you can get respect is to start Indie and then do big studio films" 29:15 Chris Stuckman is championing the method that Chris Stuckman is himself doing. if Stuckman were handed the opportunity to helm a 200-million feature with NO short films or Indie features, he'd be instead championing the audacity and verve of a true filmmaker with no credits but a clear, impassioned vision breaking all the rules.
Hey Wolf, I got an idea for a Highlight clip. -- Short clip is the Better Help AI article read MauLer had in this EFAP. Longer clip (and I don't know the proper EFAPs to reference) is the AI Article clip from the most recent EFAP + Other times MauLer has mentioned Better Help and their controversies in the past. Also Hi!
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.
The title: 'The assassination of Chris Stuckman by the coward Chris Stuckman' gave me a genuinely hearty laugh when I read it. Thank you, whoever came up with that.
if they REALLY HAD TO kill the villian the way they did: 1. villain keeps drinking Pepsi throughout the movie 2. at some point someone tells him he should quit or that stuff is gonna kill him someday 3. gets crushed by falling Pepsi sign in the end or something. its not that hard
If we have this kind of criticism imagine the world we live in, Everything is shit because we are afraid to criticize something because we are more focus not to hurt someone's feelings.
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.
If you want the single greatest example of criticism making a difference in someone's life in the past 15 years: A man who made Christian games and short films for children was told that his character designs looked like creepy, uncanny Chuck E. Cheese animatronics, so he took that criticism, and decided to make Five Nights at Freddy's. That's what listening to criticism can do for you.
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
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."
Did he have a Kazoo though?
Have to agree, that little pink dog has more bravery and integrity in him than Stuckmann.
Things Courage do for love....
“Ooooh the things I do for Hollywood acceptance.”
Was gonna say the same thing. When push came to shove, Courage came through for Muriel and Eustace!
Stuckmann is a craven little weasel.
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.
"This movie sucks so much that I'm afraid of reviewing it in an honest manner."
He unintentionally made the movie look even worse.
That point is sad considering that actually happens now in schools.
The hilarious part is that by not reviewing a movie he's basically saying it's bad but in the most condescending way.
@@okagron It is more honorable to offer critique but Suckmann has no honor
Ur funny😂😂😂 wow so funny 😂 and know a lot too! Wow ur so smart and clever and cool😂😂 wow wow wow wow
Uhhh he built his channel on trashing George Lucas. An independent film maker. Kinda hypocritical
Lucas = Lucasfilm. It's the studios that can get Stuckmann-fucked
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.
ppl change. not on his side but this isnt a good argument imo
Im sure he views it as punching up rather then down
Tell that to my mother's broken neck who was in the Amazon studying spiders just before she died.
He grew up with his mothers broken neck who was in the amazon studying spiders just before she died.
@@thebatman4279And that was his only joy in life... on a farm.
@@lokiswager"Joy in life is acceptable...to me. As the spiders foretold."
-Abraham Baggins
He's mother also didn't understand racism, she grew up with black people
I found your mother to be an inspiration when she said "it's mothering time." Truly a moment. What are we some kinda....stuckmann?
I'm so sick of the idea that effort somehow makes something immune from criticism. I put a lot of effort into my morning dump, praise me now.
Marxist labor theory of value
@@magonus195 It's incredible how far a utopian economic theory has come.
Mr. Enter posted an editorial about a year ago deconstructing the defense of "They worked so hard".
It depends, how diverse are you? So I can scale my praise on the inclusimeter.
I was analysing your performance closely and I was sorely disappointed by the effort I saw you put into that dump
You didn’t have to do Courage the Cowardly Dog that dirty with the thumbnail.
😂
I hated that disgusting dog (as a child) almost as much as I hate Chris (as adult).
@@dimas3829 Courage is great, the fug you talking about
@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.
@@nmr7203 Courage is a useless parasite and should have been replaced with proper dog or properly disciplined into one
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.
You really shouldn't be mentioning this, think of all the hard werk those other werkers did on that foundation!!! They put in hard werk!!!
Ever since he cried about RedLetterMedia making fun of him in one of their videos I knew he was a joke.
Oh maaan,
I completely missed that one.
Do you remember what topic was the rlm video about?
@@vrika4280Ghostbusters re:view
ruclips.net/video/F-F4-wvtu9U/видео.html&ab_channel=C.JThape
@@Shockguey
Getting roasted by RLM is #lifegoals and he cried? 😂
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.
@@italianspiderman5012 I know almost nothing about this man, but what I've learned about him paints the picture of a moron.
@@italianspiderman5012 I know almost nothing about the man, but from what I've learned he seems like a moron.
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.
He’s cretinous
If Chris is this awful at expressing his own thoughts and opinions, then what good would he be as a director?
It hurts cause he really used to be great but now he's just gone the Kevin Smith route of sellin his soul to the studios he criticized
I mean, just because you're bad at one it means you're bad with the other.
Dude clearly has issues, your logic didn't track.
"How was that take?"
"... I don't want to bash it..."
@@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
@@greatestscott6599"you should get an Oscar nomination and hopefully i will walk away with one as well "
Chris Stuckmann is over. He wants to make movies and be part of the same garbage establishment.
It's even more funny because his GENIUS technique is to constantly blame producers and executives, yknow, the guys he has to eventually work for.
@@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.
@@denkerbosu3551*jewish types. Ftfy
@@denkerbosu3551"failed artist"
Looking forward to his war arc.
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.
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."
By this logic, no one should trash suicide squad kills the Justice League because it was inspired by the Arkham games and WB was the publisher.
Again he talk about movies not video games.
It's not logic, it's cowardice.
It's not logic, it's cowardice.
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.
💯
Those are on a limited supply + he doesn't get to virtue signal about the poor artsy fartsy types that got money from those eeeeevil producers.
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.
Who watches him when he dont contribute anything for anyone.
I do, to help me sleep.
@@arklaw8306 That's what EFAPs for.
I just put it on and pretend I'm Aydin Paladin.
I used to watch him, years ago. But I never saw his videos as "reviews" exactly. More like short descriptions of movies that came out recently. I don't always get around to reading synopses, so it was a convenient way to decide if a movie's premise sounds interesting just by listening to his video on 2x speed.
But when he started adding weird sanctimonious shit and also disavowing his more entertaining past content, I unsubscribed.
Jeremy Jahns is better for the type of content I'm looking for anyway
@@j-starchaser this is hysterical. You used him as a text to voice bot, but he fails at even that!
@@denkerbosu3551 wow, I never looked at it this way, but you're absolutely right 😂
That's so brutal
'Im the executive Producer, you fuck!!' goated response.
Timestamp?
@@Quatrixjs1 6:20 it's this section here. Rags says this.
I need your PFP.
The thing is, I don’t care if Chris wants to glaze movies and not actually review them. What ticks me off is how he has this “holier than thou” attitude towards it. He talks like he thinks any person that negatively reviews a movie is a bad person. He’s lecturing his audience like we were just called to the principal’s office and need to be taught how to not shoot spitballs in class.
Actually, him pointing out good things in bad movies would be a good niche i would maybe consifer to watch. Could be good content. But his approach is just garbage.
@@VespasianOfTheThirdSo Cinema Wins?
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.
Well now, it's simple he's a terrible screenwriter & Director.
To be fair, he did do that. But he’s gone back to “reviewing” movies, without reviewing them, likely just for the consistent income.
@@thecoach3577 for real.
He can’t leave RUclips 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…
Dumb and Dumber could hire him
I miss the old Stuckmann. Straight from the gold Stuckmann. The always bold Stuckmann. Set on his goals Stuckmann.
I hate the new Stuckmann. The bad reviews Stuckmann. Spaz for the views Stuckmann. Scared to be rude Stuckmann.
"Scared to be rude Stuckmann" 😂
😂
Holy shit. Nice dude.
god tier comment
he's becoming PC.
Criticism is not ‘bashing’ so long as it is in good faith
So is Chris implying that no criticism of the film is in good faith?
he's perfectly fine with any and all criticism of a movie as long as it's only levelled at the producers. Creatives are Godlike, perfect and infallible.
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.
Even before I knew how much of a POS Quinton was, he always just came off as an absolute bore.
Simped so hard for Contrapoints and Lindsay Ellis too.
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.
“What happen?! Did your balls drop off?!”
- The Joker from The Dark Knight
I use the “Who Killed Captain Alex” test nowadays.
If the movie doesnt make me entertained as much if not more than Who Killed Captain Alex, a Ugandan movie made by a village with cardboard guns and an unrelated video joker and a $200 budget, then the movie is not worth my time.
Just tell a fun story
"Everybody in Uganda knows Kung-fu!"
Why WOULDN’T you criticize a soulless, uninspiring garbage-film?
Because he wants good boy pats from Hollywood bigwigs
@@robertwoods3871 Servitude for table scraps. How very tragic for Chris.
You really had to do my man Courage like that???😢
He made it too obvious when he was the only “critic” to not review Sound of Freedom.
That's partly because he probably has dark secret desires for kids like plenty of Hollywood.
he's woke
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
Meddling*
thx@@AbelMusa
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.
Nice one
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.
James Rolfe did it better with Ghostbusters 2016. Wasnt going to see it so he didn't have to review it. Easy.
That is an interesting point. If he just ignored the movie’s existence I think his audience would question it a bit, but for the most part he could just move on. Its not like as a critic you are Required to watch every movie that goes to theatres, especially if you publish one or two reviews a week.
you mean James Ralph?
@@f3ynman44 I think the Avgn is Rolfe
@@tanrata8658 It's an ancient EFAP joke
I remember it. He basically came out and said it wasn't his type of movie and wasn't therefore wasn't going go see it. He didn't insult anybody, though he did say the effects looked somewhat bad and that was really it. It was a reasonable response. But it being Ghostbusters 2016 he was immediately labeled a sexist and people tried to drag him down for not wanting to see it. I don't think he ever responded to the controversy and came out the other end intact by not engaging with the culture war that surrounded that movie. A culture war that was being actively fueled by Sony at that.
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.
Agreed. ShortFatOtaku actually made a really good video about troll's remorse.
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.
Nah when Shelby Oaks fails, and the critics roasts his ass. He’s coming back to his true form
and coming out swinging… just watch!😂
I will say this, it's a decent premise. Girl looks for possessed sister in the woods.
I just don't think he has the raw sharpened edge to do anything that's actually morbid.
The Evil Dead remake showed full dismemberment and tree rapture.
@@ShockgueyThe ARG before was cool though, little generic, but I always like when there’s a real life, immersive interactive element like that. If the movie is bad (and if he continues on this path it likely will be) I hope the ARG isn’t as dragged down into mud.
He's gonna go all Eric Chicken July on even the mildest of his detractors.
Shelby Oaks being an awful movie is going to ruin Chris' credibility way more than he could realize
Top tier thumbnail Wolf man XD
So his argument is: "Hey, these film makers worked really hard on this and they had a difficult boss, so I'm not going to critique it."
Well, yeah, Chris. That's true. But they also got paid for it. And you're a film critic.
Chris Stuckmann simps: OH MY GOD, CHRIS DIDN'T LIKE THE MOVIE, WHY DO YOU CARE?
Me: Yes. He didn't like the movie. The problem is he wasn't willing to call out how bad it was, instead pussyfooting around the issue, and nebulously blaming the studios, which nobody inside his realm is going to be pissed at. Yes, studio interference is a thing. But Chris is claiming that the studio interference is the only problem Madame Web, and any movie, faces. Completely ignoring how movies like The Room that are completely independently backed, fail miserably, and how directors can in fact be at fault, like when Tom Hooper directed cats, and was being an abusive asshole who refused to work within the medium of Cats. The reality is you just don't want to hear someone insult Madame Web, because you're scared of negativity, so rather than ignore the negative reviews, you just want Chris to validate your toxic positivity, and watch grifters "Call out" the negative critics you don't like in order to validate your opinions.
Chris Stuckmann simps: ...well Chris Stuckmann is still my senpai, because he validates my opinions! So na na boo boo!
@jeremyusreevu237 That is the reality of the situation with Chris and yet film essayists and defenders are willingly being blind to it because Chris is “nice”. Yes because “nice” is all that matters to these clowns. It’s never the content of the words or based off any kind of research. Could you argue Mauler and company were a bit mean to Chris? Sure. But this is a very special F up Chris made, given the appropriate backlash he also got. He earned this and managed to destroy any credibility he once had.
Tom Hooper directed Cats, not Tobe Hooper
Perhaps the reason Cats was so bad was because Tobe Hooper had been dead for 2 years when he made it lol
I guarantee most people rushing to Chris' defense don't actually value what he has to say. They're doing it because MauLer and Co are calling him out, and they have a need to fight the "Big, Bad Longman and his negative friends."
@cmbotch5739 Oh, you're right! It was TOM Hooper who directed Cats 2019, not Tobe! My mistake.
Chris Stuckmann explaining that it's 'Fine' that RedLetterMedia made fun of him while making a whole video about it..
All I can think is: "They-Ask-You-How-You-Are-And-You-Have-To-Say-That-You're-Fine-But-You're-Not-Really-Fine-And-You-just-Can't-Go-Into-It-Because-They-just-Won't-Understand--"
@Frieza-yg4zp It's originally said by actress Katy Perry on a reality tv program and turned into a whole meme. RUclips-searching 'they ask you how you are and you just have to say you're fine' will bring up tons of uses for when you just put a smile on to hide the pain. :D
Keep up with bashing Stuckman guys
That thumbnail tho 😂👌 poor courage.
Hey, to be fair, Courage might be afraid, but he always faces his fears and deals with it when he needs to. Also that shit he saw was scary, I dont blame the little dude
Also Courage wouldve reviewed Madame Web
Hilarious part is I doubt Chris is ever gonna work in the industry. His videos are painfully basic, his critiques aren't especially insightful or interesting, his writing isn't much better nor his camera work, there's really nothing he can offer to the film industry.
That thumbnail is cruel man. Courage is being down a huge disservice there. There is more bravery and honesty in his tail than Chris has in his body.
The writers for Madame Webb were Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless.
Their writing credits include, Dracula Untold (2014); The Last Witch Hunter (2015); Gods of Egypt (2016) and Morbius (2022), literally all of them were failures critically and financially.
There was NO studio interference, Sony trusted them way too much.
Both writers said they had no idea who Madame Webb was and they further articulated the incredibly innacurate statement that there wasn't much of a background to her story.
How they still managed to get hired in hollywood is the true mystery.
He retired the ONLY good part of his show??
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.
Josh Trank clashed with the original Fant-four-stick writer, apparently, who wanted to keep it closer to the source material, but Trank, having no ties to F4, just wanted to make Chronicle 2.0, and sabbotaged multiple attempts to mediate and compromise by going behind everyone's back. He also took out his frustrations on the cast and generally acted petty. That's one side I heard.
Quite funny you bring that up, since he trashed that movie quite hard in his review back when it came out. I wonder if he'd try to defend it in some way today.
@@MaesterMike He'd turn it into another 'creator's rights' lecture like he did here.
But creatives! Creatives are always right so says our lord and saviour Chris Stuckman.
A movie reviewer who doesn't actually review movies.😂😂😂
That's not a fair comparison. Courage is the type of person who, despite his anxiety, would not only participate in a local film making competition but would call out his neighbors' (such as the Foo guy) crappy productions while they're being screened.
So he started out as a guy who clearly wanted to emulate Plinkett without the voice, and became...whatever he is now, a guy with no opinions.
It's shocking how Chris has become some ignorant at the idea that a bad movie happens only because studios got too involved. Chris's infamous "Zod's Snapped Neck" response wasn't directed towards the studio but David S Goyer and Zack Snyder who wrote and directed how that scene planned out originally, WB had nothing to do with it. Why is he pretending or assuming a bad film isn't at fault of the creators involved?
Superman killed Zod three times in DC comics. So brutally once that Spectre confronted that with Superman. So Zack Snyder and David Goyer are absolutely right. Man of Steel is the best and most comics accurate Superman movie ever. 10/10. People who criticize Man of Steel and Zack Snyder, have no clue about DC comics and nostalgic idiot of Christopher Reeves.
@@browndestroyer3016 thank you.
Comics fans are so gay. "The comics did it so it's okay", simp.
Just because A writer of A comic wrote something into canon, doesn't make it automatically good or acceptable.
Get over yourself.
@@browndestroyer3016 I liked Man of Steel, and was more neutral on BVS, but Chris's rewrite was just.... painful. I actually did like Man of Steel's take on superman. That being said, bit reductive to speak so negatively of Reeve's Superman, as there is some media presence of a similarly springy and bright sort of Superman. The animated cartoons of the 40s come to mind.
@@viddykhaos2896 I am going to be honest with you, with due respect, Man of Steel wasn't any take on Superman, it was from comics, Man of Steel movie was based on Superman American Alien, Superman Earth One, Superman Birthright, Superman Secret Origin, Superman Secret Identity, Man of Steel comics, Superman Grounded, New 52. Ben Affleck Batman was based on Dark Knight by Frank Miller, Batman Earth One, Superman/ Batman World's Finest (1990).
Now Christopher Reeves was a take on Superman.
You know, Madame Web predicted all this.
Who did what?
@@lproof8472 All these problems in Sony, the end of cinema.
@@lproof8472 All these problems, the Hollywood strikes, the end of the world
@@Ducky-vl7mp Spider-Man. Madame Web is the fuckin hunchback of superhero movies.
@@lproof8472 Oh right! Superhero-man!
Somebody get this Male Character 01 a personality.
I need to see an EFAP movies on a Stuckmann movie.
I just need that in my life.
Hopefully with J-Long and her infectious laughter.
You’ll be happy to know that EFAP has released a reaction to Chris Stuckmann’s short film, Notes From Melanie. ruclips.net/video/QRBNPZPHhj8/видео.htmlsi=SiR3O1YL2D6fsm5S
@@broisyougobbling Watched it. That short film was so pretentious.
Here before the Stuckman fans find this and say that EFAP is dogpiling him
@brandomm1708 I'd kindly say to those folks to actually do some research and come back. Because if they are anything like HiTop and everyone, they are ill-informed and lacking in their defense. Chris earned this with his bad his video was. He should have known better than to make it without doing an iota of research. If Chris had taken a more nuanced approach, if Chris had done research and made his criticisms more constructive, fair enough. But he didn't. He dumbly chose to wag the finger at us, trying to assert he's a "filmmaker" in the process. Yeah, ok. I do wish him luck on his movie but I personally can't look at him the same way as I used to in that he's destroyed any kind of credibility he once had.
@@Avarn388 you could especially tel they didn’t do their research because they were all saying “They talked about Stuckman for A WHOLE HOUR” when in the original video it was multiple hours. They pulled a long man bad, but didn’t even look at the video for 2 seconds to realize it was a highlight lmao
I would describe myself as a Stuckmann fan, even though i haven’t been a subscriber for a year or two.
I won’t defend him here. His channel and formula of reviewing is completely pointless and meaningless.
I couldnt imagine being so terrified of something in life that i let it keep me from doing my job. Id quit that job.
Angry Joe's comment was fucking legendary. Did not expect that from him
Edit: 43:36
I've never thought Joe was much of a shill, just often has shitty taste. I believe Joe's opinions are truthful. Stuckman's have never been.
@@markbradley9907 he can be legit terrified of saying the wrong thing at times. Or being "on the wrong side"
As someone else said, as redacted as Joe's takes can be sometimes (ESPECIALLY when it comes to movies and TV) those are his takes and he'll stand by them. If he's criticizing a individual creative or entire studio, he won't do it in a passive roundabout way while pretending to be Mr. Positive.
@@denkerbosu3551 I agree, Angry Joe is clearly an eggshell walking type. You can tell he has takes that he's afraid to say, so he kind of projects it by digging at Other Joe who just doesn't seem to care about anything. I wouldn't be surprised that if Other Joe is his normie filter. Stuckmann is just pretentious if you ask me. He wants to be elitist, but just can't reach the level that he wants so he's stuck on the sideline.
Alex on Angry Joe's show often has the best take.
Chris reminds me of the same type of cowardice that Game "Reviewers" do when they start blaming the producers and not the "Poor Dev Teams".
If the game is bad, they are ALL to blame.
Anyone who has seen any Chris Stuckman review in the past knows he was a coward from the start. He has no problem gushing over a movie that is good and a box office hit. But if a movie is bad...... participation trophies for everyone!!!!
Dude, that shout out by RLM should be a "Senpai noticed me" and he should be thrilled.
If anything stopped his “real film career,” it’s that abysmal Man Of Steel rewrite he posted many years back.
Bvs*
"Tell that to Stuckmann's artistic talent's snapped neck."
Do you know the tragic tale of Ralph the movie maker? it's not a story that 47-year old wannabe screenwriters will tell you....
What happened to Ralph?
Whatever happened to the Sardonicast? Three pretentious film critics with even one of them being on EFAP showing how pretentious he was lmao.
@@52BLUE on Sardonicast, Ralph weakly admitted that he thought "Joker" was an interesting film. IHE tore into him while YMS laughed. Please understand that IHE is seen, by their crowd, as wealthy and connected. Someone who could open doors. (I doubt that, but there you have it.) Anyway Ralph goes on to make a "Joker" video, which was meant to be, in part, a public denouncement of "Joker" in hopes of appeasing IHE and the rest of that faction. However, some part of Ralph did not actually want to cowtow like that. Yet another part of him still held a torch for real, hollywood work. So, he was a man at war with himself and that really came through in the video. There were schizoid moments, like describing "Citizen Kane" as a foundational film, then barking back at himself, saying that "Kane" is both boring and hard to watch. (Hey, I don't rate it very highly either.) but, this illustrates Ralphs actual perspective VS what he feared he would have to conform to. "movie maker" was in his name all along. I do not blame him or shame him, not one bit, but youtube was always meant to be a stepping stool for him. I am sorry to say that no amount of hustle or noterity was ever going to get him over that wall. Those dice were rolled a long time ago. Mike at RLM also thought that phone would ring one day, as many in hollywood, disney and television follow and like him. he has made his peace at this point. Stucmanized is the same, but I care for him least of all. he seems talentless and insincere.
Used to watch him, but now he’s another person who loves to hear himself talk
If he reviews it honestly, he loses his much vaunted "access." If he reviews it dishonestly (his usual modus operandi) this particular film is so fucking shocking, it would expose him even to his hardcore fans.
Thank you Jlongbone for getting the ball rolling a true disruptor
I do wonder, If Chris believes that all creatives are equally good, what makes him think that any movie studio would choose him over anyone else?
I don't know about that, but I do think he believes all creatives, directors, writers, etc are hurt by any kind of criticism. Not true. Martin Scorsese liked when Ebert and Siskel were critical of his movies because it helped him improved for the next. Then you have someone like Richard Linkletter who said he doesn't pay attention to reviews because by the time they come out he has already moved on to his next film.
Stuckman sold out all his family and old friends claiming they kept him from being successful in life in order to garnish pity from his community. He has been a sell out for years, he'll do anything for fame and career success. You can see how this has sucked the soul from him. He is a husk of what he used to be.
Is there a term for what he's doing? It's actually far more insulting in a way. It's like a boss giving an employee a referral saying they are punctual and fulfilled their job description. Damned by faint praise?
I want a video of the actesses reacting to the video.
**winces**
"Why are we watching this?"
**vapes**
"God this guy such a loser"
Pussyfooting?
Passive aggressive?
@dragon1945 What if this an absolutely 1000IQ troll where he's slamming the video by saying 'I'm not going to review this cos I have absolutely noyhing good to say about it'? Cos I'm not sure I can think of a better way to make that point than what he did
@@dreadlittlewings5268 that's the closest phrase I guess
I'll take Spider-Man 3, Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2, Both Venoms marathon over single Madame Web.
I'm reminded of BennetTheSage's not-review of Violence Jack, in which his producer chewed him out for trying to get out of reviewing it:
"YOU CANNOT DO THIS JOB WITHOUT OFFENDING SOMEONE!"
An excerpt from a scripted skit which pertains to an audience's reaction in its original context, but applies just as well to how filmmakers might react to criticism.
Rian Johnson had complete creative control over TLJ, we all saw how that panned out
Ace "You can't judge a book by its cover."
Lister "And you can't confuse Stuckmann with a book. For starters, a book's got a spine."
I do a lot of freelance work myself, half the job is overcoming unforeseen obstacles and keeping your head on straight like it's not a thing.
I love movies so much but that doesn’t mean I’m cut out to be a filmmaker. Being a director is a lot like being an author, anyone can do it but only a few are really good at it.
Unfortunately for Chris, this does seem to be a case of somebody who really loves movies but is not passionate or talented enough to become a director.
I’m not saying this to be mean, I just think Chris needs some brutal honesty. He probably will never be a big director working in Hollywood. No matter how hard he tries, he’s just not good enough.
We’ll see how good Shelby Oaks does but either Chris needs to get back his integrity and continue making genuine RUclips videos or just quit and find a real job.
Or he can just do both, and not worry that real criticism is going to hurt his career. Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith they are able to do both. Most people are able to take criticism and not see it as a personal attack.
I do think Chris being raised in a cult may have heard his ability to take criticism. And for that I hope he gets help, for this career is going to kill him.
Of course he has the ‘our hard earned money’ as if the producers execs etc on the corporate side didn’t work hard to get the movie made, good or bad
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
First of all, the only reason he's not "bashing" bad movies as he says (which to be fair, he's had this opinion for a while now) is because he's making his own film. I guarantee he's going to use that to springboard working into Hollywood, and to cover himself, he's stopped criticizing those studios' awful films.
Second, what he says about it taking a lot of time and effort to make a film amounts to nothing when the film is bad. Look at Winnie the Pooh Blood and Honey, when reviewers talked bad about it, the production company fired back and talked about all the effort they put into it, and all the time they spent in the hot Summer. Well, the movie still looks like shit, so I guess it was all for nothing.
This was therapeutic. Thanks for making this. I appreciate the time taken put this together. It really ties together the emptiness I have been feeling from his channel.
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.
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.
Chris Stuckman is now the male equivalent of Grace Randolph, you can't convince me otherwise
"Oh, gee. I wanted spaghetti and meatballs, and I instead got steaming dog poo on my plate.
But since I've peaked through the curtains into the kitchen I've essentially been in the trenches with these guys and understand everything. they're going through because of the higher ups!
So not only am I gonna pay for the food, but also tip them!
Cause I love food."
//Stuckmann, probably.
Did Chris mention that hes a film maker?
I usually find Critical Drinker annoying to listen to. He's far better when speaking off the cuff like a regular person than in his drunken persona.
Saying you can't criticize movies because you're now a director is a bit like a world leader saying "I can't criticise Idi Amin for eating people now I know how difficult being a leader is"
"Chris Stuckman is saying the only way you can get respect is to start Indie and then do big studio films" 29:15
Chris Stuckman is championing the method that Chris Stuckman is himself doing. if Stuckman were handed the opportunity to helm a 200-million feature with NO short films or Indie features, he'd be instead championing the audacity and verve of a true filmmaker with no credits but a clear, impassioned vision breaking all the rules.
Hey Wolf, I got an idea for a Highlight clip. --
Short clip is the Better Help AI article read MauLer had in this EFAP.
Longer clip (and I don't know the proper EFAPs to reference) is the AI Article clip from the most recent EFAP + Other times MauLer has mentioned Better Help and their controversies in the past.
Also Hi!
Not only a coward, he is a liar, Watch his "rings of power " review.
"I AM A filmmaker, I AM A filmmaker" amazing stuff
He brings up his movie in every video he makes.
"He's more vegetable than man now. Twisted and evil....."
I'm I the only one who thought Stuckman was a hack the whole fucking time?
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.
Makes me happy to hear your voice at the end Wolf. Hope you’re doing well.
I checked out on him about two years ago when he started preaching about his sexual preferences instead of delivering another review.
You know you F-ed up Royally when AngryJoe questions your integrity as a reviewer.
The title: 'The assassination of Chris Stuckman by the coward Chris Stuckman' gave me a genuinely hearty laugh when I read it. Thank you, whoever came up with that.
if they REALLY HAD TO kill the villian the way they did:
1. villain keeps drinking Pepsi throughout the movie
2. at some point someone tells him he should quit or that stuff is gonna kill him someday
3. gets crushed by falling Pepsi sign in the end
or something. its not that hard
Would probably get sued by Pepsi for making their product look bad or something
Ngl, I found that scene amusing 😄
finally, a new, long-awaited chapter of Stuckmanverse
If we have this kind of criticism imagine the world we live in, Everything is shit because we are afraid to criticize something because we are more focus not to hurt someone's feelings.
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.
Indeed. Look at the back of the man he built his channel on; George Lucas.
As a critic you can destroy your integrity and this is how, Stuckmann sit down and have a "Bud light" .
If you want the single greatest example of criticism making a difference in someone's life in the past 15 years:
A man who made Christian games and short films for children was told that his character designs looked like creepy, uncanny Chuck E. Cheese animatronics, so he took that criticism, and decided to make Five Nights at Freddy's.
That's what listening to criticism can do for you.
His review of The Last Jedi was the breaking point for me.
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
This is by far the most entertaining video I've seen in a while! 😂
his response to a joke from RLM was the most embarrassing thing along with collider's responses to them. Absolutely embarrassing.
Is that the video where he kept saying that he didn't care but the fact that he even made the response showed he cared? Very much, might I add.
@@GingerZombie29 And his eyes are bloodshot from obviously crying.
@@GingerZombie29 not to mention he removed them from his youtube channel and then messaged them on twitter lol