The Eight Rings of Bad Internet Reviewer Hell
-Ring One: Listicle-Fever-
A source that’s better at cataloging content worth the viewer’s interest gets it into their head that they are a decent source of information and critical opinion. Bonus points: +the source is user generated and voted for without moderation, so it’s really no one’s actual opinion +article sites quote each other as a source
Examples: WatchMojo, Cracked.com, Listverse
Exceptions: PanPizza and CR
-Ring 2: Funnyman thinks he’s a Reviewer "oh god"-
While everyone's a critic, not everyone is a reviewer. This bad faith + bad take combo comes from a person who’s better at making observational jokes (riffs) at something, but then thinks said jokes are meaningful analysis simply because they occasionally point out actual problems in the material. Bonus points: +jokes are offensive and not funny +they’re actively ignoring the actual text to make jokes +deflects their own critics by calling everyone who doesn’t buy into their jokes “butthurt fans”
Examples: CinemaSins, Cracked.com, post Demo-Reel Doug Walker, ScreenJunkies
Exceptions: Rifftrax/MST3K, Retsupurae (rip), ABrandontoThePast, penguinz0
-Ring 3: “Let’s go through the movie together :D”-
A standard retrospective-based review format; best used on contained 3-act structures. The reviewer obviously has the foresight of having watched something before they discuss it to the audience. At their best, these kinds of reviews are fun. At their worst, these videos are just validation farms designed to rip on something sillystupid. Bonus points: +performatively angry and over the top +reviewer takes the subject too seriously in a way that feels unpleasant or a chore to sit through as an audience +alternatively, they have the same trouble as the ‘Funnyman’ and holds no interest in what they’re talking about
Examples: Irate Gamer, MysteriousMr.Enter, ConfusedMathew, Doug Walker again
Exceptions: PeanutButterGamer, Jenny Nicholson, Phelous and Allison Pregler, Bad Princess Movie Podcast, Double Toasted, YourMovieSucks, ToddintheShadows
-Ring 4: Super-Fan-Fail-Theorist-
Bi-monthly theorizing about what a new plot development for a show is, or after-the-fact musing on a what ‘something’ nebulously ‘means’. Very often transforms into fan theorizing and analyzing media for conclusion’s sake. Prone to A LOT of bias of the fan reviewer’s absolutist-take. Obsessed with a product’s fringe and ultimately deeply invested in what is a shallow-insight. Bonus points: +reviewer won't parse the difference between their theory and the text +reviewer is defensive and won’t share the fandom with people who don’t share their take
Examples: Game Theory, Wisecrack
Exceptions: CinemaCartography, Jacob Geller, Sarah Zed and Lady Emily
-Ring 5: Wannabe Breadtube Retrospecterer-
Reviewer wants to be a researched, respected, ‘enlightened’ 2-hour vid maker but is really just an annoyed fan who’s lengthy reviews aren’t structured. Criticism might be valid, but is usually more about what the reviewer doesn't ‘like’ than what's actually wrong with something. Feels more like a lecture and a take-down than it is an enlightening hot take, at best. Also, it's your fault if you disagree with them and they live rent free in their critics heads- totally not the other way around! Bonus points: +incorrect, ludicrous, needless accusations tossed around at ppl they dislike +sounds like they're telling the audience how to feel, not why they feel think something is "awful and here’s why” +reviewer refuses to apologize or correct themselves if they get their facts wrong
Examples: Lily Orchard, Mysterious Mr. Enter again, half of the alt-light douchbags with hour long rants about Star Wars who ironically are all out to counter leftBreadtubers
Exceptions: Accented Cinema, Shaun, Folding Ideas, Xiran Jay Zhao, Princess Weekes, Lindsay Ellis, Lady Emily again, BenettetheSage's newest vids, Cheyenne Lin, and Sideways
-Ring 6: DNI-Danny -
Otherwise known as the “Anti". Jaded by years of abusive standom, they cling to good takes and criticism when it’s convenient for them but otherwise see fandom and critical analysis as a battlefield THEY MUST win. Very judgemental of people who don’t share their (sometimes exact) opinions; quick to gaslight/block/smear people just for association. Absolutist as a means of keeping oneself ‘safe’. Bonus points: +apologizing is NEVER AN OPTION +genuinely treats fandom takes as tho they’re comparable to politics and real morality +DNI list consists of MAPS, bigots, republicans and ppl who ship that toxic ship they don’t like +"no I didn't even watch the video, I don't have to!!" +"cancel culture doesn't exist"
Examples: Lily Orchard again and also prolly some tumblr user you know
-Ring 7: Choked on the Reddit-Pill-
Caught in a toxic dance of death with the DNI-Danny. May be the reason the former exists, but absolutely exists to counter the DNI-Danny at their bs by functioning more bs. So obsessed with being a counter argument and fighting for “actual social justice” (whatever that means) that they don’t recognize their own absolutism, centricism, or selfishness for what it is. Where the Anti counters with “think of the marginalized” the Reddit-Pill is obsessed with “well I’m not [worst case scenario] so why it is my problem that [worst case scenario] exists, HMMM???!” Bonus points if: +really love the term ‘moral guardians’ unironically +“fiction never reflects reality” +"cancel culture doesn't exist" +"some of us can tell the difference between fiction and reality"
Examples: Bad Webcomics Wiki, 4chan, half of the complacent "not me"-base that is KiwiFarms
-Ring 8: Actual Moral Guardians-
Not a jaded or concerned fan fighting for the rights of the marginalized, or for other people, at all. Not even a critic. Legit cult member working in ACTUAL bad faith. 100% unironically believes that liking (or even watching) something means you are being brainwashed/going to hell. Ostensibly has a skewed understanding of how media actually affects people (because they legit think it happens thru mind control and not emotional connections.
Never have good takes or good faith-basis of their own. They can only ever parrot criticisms from other people to fit their usually conservative-minded beliefs. Legit witchhunt.
Examples: Jordan Peterson, The Satanic Panic, Ben Shapiro, QAnon, Breitbart
inb4: "DID YOU KNOW that the reviewer you rec actually did-"/"they don't like that other reviewer you rec"/"they won't fuck you stop promoing them"
>I'm not here to tell you the ppl I recommended in the links are saints, good people, or even the best reviewers with the one take to rule them all. I don't know them. I'm recommending them on the basis of how to see this kind of reviewing done right.
>I'm not these reviewer's moms. I don't know them. I'm pretty sure some of these people dislike some of these other people- I don't even watch every person I recommended here- but why or how is none of my business. I'm recommending ppl as a viewer.
>I'm aroace and a lot of these people are married or taken. I HOPE they won't fuck me, tbh.
If your favoritist reviewer-person ever is on the example list, barring the final rings, it's none of my business Jan. I still like ScreenJunkies tbh.
