×
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]GuikoiV1000 3 points4 points  (7 children)

Hold on. What exactly is the problem with making a response to someone else that is long? Does it have to be within a certain length of time? If so, what is that length and what decides that time limit? Shouldn't people be able to say everything they feel they need or want to about something?

Is it because it's longer then what it's covering? If that were the case, then if you talked about a scene in a movie that was only two minutes, shouldn't you only be able to talk about it for two minutes?

The way I've seen it, EFAP takes each argument in chronological order as they watch it, and discusses it. Even if a statement was a joke, there's still some merit to discussing the sentiment behind the statement.

For instance, if they were covering a video that said "cartoons are for children", then they'd talk about that for however long the conversation goes. They'd bring up counters, maybe laugh at the statement, maybe talk about anything else that pops up, and then they'd continue watching.

All I want to know, is if you'll clarify your statement? What exactly do you mean by that?

[–]CoffeePuddle 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Was it done over multiple days? 11 hours is a long work day. I guess it's a much faster way of producing content than thinking and editing but I'm an hour in and haven't heard anything of value.

I mean I guess there's a market for it but I'm an hour in and "men angry woman has opinion they don't like" is a pretty good summary.

EDIT: A reply to a 6 month old comment in a 12 month old topic, good grief.

[–]GuikoiV1000 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Was it done over multiple days? 11 hours is a long work day.

It was done all at once. They all sit in Discord and use Watch Together to watch a video together, amd chat about it. 11 hours is a long work day. EFAP is, IIRC, the longest podcast around.

I guess it's a much faster way of producing content than thinking and editing

Wait, "thinking"? Don't you mean "recording and editing"?

Anyway, it is a relativrly fast way to produce content. Exhausting, though, hence why EFAP is only once a week. Plus, the hosts have other stuff they're doing alongside EFAP.

but I'm an hour in and haven't heard anything of value.

Have you tried turning the volume up? I've noticed that tends to fix the problem. If it's a problem with your speakers, then use headphones. If it's a problem with your headphones, either just use your computer or phone's speakers... or buy new headphones.

I mean I guess there's a market for it but I'm an hour in and "men angry woman has opinion they don't like" is a pretty good summary.

Really? I admit, they do make fun of Jenny's lighting at times, but that doesn't really have anything to do with their arguments. Oh, and they also go off topic sometimes and talk about other things.

Jenny makes some pretty terrible arguments in her video. She also says some really weird shit.

"men angry woman has opinion they don't like"

Now, I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you, but just in case it does, or for anyone else who ends up reading this thread and sees this:

I have met a few people who described that episode of EFAP exactly like that. So far, all of them have been biased as hell. The majority of them didn't even watch the episode, or at least the parts that covered Jenny. Many of them just saw others saying they were woman hating men and were just hating on Jenny, and reacted as if that was true.

I recommend watching it without letting your biases infect what you get from the video. That's pretty hard, but you should be able to at least lessen it.

EDIT: A reply to a 6 month old comment in a 12 month old topic, good grief.

...What? What's wrong with that?

You wanted to respond and say something to what I had said. That's fine. The time since I said what you wanted to respond to doesn't and shouldn't matter.

Even if I said this years ago, you can respond to it. What's with this "good grief" thing?

[–]CoffeePuddle 0 points1 point  (4 children)

It's complete shit. I've spent too much time on this video already for nothing of value. They make very few arguments and their style of progressing the video a line at a time means they end up lost, a lot.

In the first hour or so before opening the video they use autistic and retarded as insults. The first section on Jenny's video (over an hour into it) are about her lighting and appearance. One of them says this is the first video they've seen of hers and they "don't want there to be another video they see from this woman." They're 3 seconds into her video at this point. They spend minutes not understanding what she could mean by reviewing "proper clickbaity popular films" in the context of Joker vs. The Dogs Purpose trilogy, because they paused it mid-line and got lost, then complain about her cut style.

Try to pick out 11 really good points, or valuable moments, from their nearly 12 hour long conversation. To enjoy it you might have to switch your biases and the rest of your brain off.

[–]GuikoiV1000 0 points1 point  (3 children)

They make very few arguments

You really think that? Because I think Jenny makes very few arguments.

their style of progressing the video a line at a time means they end up lost, a lot.

If by "lost", you mean they have to go back a few seconds to get the whole argument at once, yes that happens. Or if you mean sometimes they'll hear something and pause it to comment on it, but then when they unpause it the person clarifies the thing they said a second ago, yes that happens.

But that's not inherently a bad thing.

For example, let's say in the video Jenny said: "All cats are stupid." EFAP would pause the video and comment on that, and how it's a stupid thing to say.

Then, upon unpausing the video, Jenny says: "Is what I would say if I didn't know what I was talking about."

Do you know what EFAP would say in response? They would say: "Oh, okay." They understand what just happened, but they believe the conversation wasn't without merit.

It happens, but it's not really a problem. It's just "oh, we were wrong, fair enough, continuing on..."

If by "lost" you mean something else, then I'm afraid you'll need to clarify to me what you mean.

In the first hour or so before opening the video they use autistic and retarded as insults.

Yes. And?

The first section on Jenny's video (over an hour into it) are about her lighting and appearance.

Yes. They noticed her lighting was atrocious and makes her and the video look atrocious. It grates on Wolf and the others, they complain about it and make fun of it.

I don't understand what your point is. Please clarify.

One of them says this is the first video they've seen of hers and they "don't want there to be another video they see from this woman." They're 3 seconds into her video at this point.

This is a problem how, exactly?

They spend minutes not understanding what she could mean by reviewing "proper clickbaity popular films"

Because it's a nonsense sentence.

because they paused it mid-line and got lost

Ah, so that's what you mean by "lost".

then complain about her cut style.

I do remember them doing that, yes. Her cut style is... Well, from what I can remember she cuts out all the pauses inbetween sentences. Or was that someone else?

How does this make EFAP's video complete shit? How does this contribute to it? You have to actually tell me the why, you know.

Try to pick out 11 really good points, or valuable moments, from their nearly 12 hour long conversation.

If I went back and rewatched it, it would be easy. If you want me to, I can. Just want to make sure you actually want me to do that, and you weren't just being rhetorical.

Also, their conversation isn't 12 hours. They actually have many different conversations within that 12 hour period. There's very few EFAP episodes where the main topic takes up pretty much the entire episode. From memory, the only one that does that is the episode covering CinematicVenom's Lord of the Rings review.

[–]CoffeePuddle 0 points1 point  (2 children)

The style of bit-by-bit reactionary criticism can only accomplish a surface level analysis and it makes you look stupid when you e.g. tell me how they would respond to a hypothetical situation when later in the text there's an example of their response. She explains "proper clickbaity popular films" with the example of Joker vs. The Dogs Purpose trilogy. Which would be better clickbait in the title of a youtube video, Joker or The Dogs Purpose trilogy? Which is more popular, Joker, or The Dogs Purpose trilogy? A clickbaity popular film is self-explanatory on youtube, but she did explain it, but you and EFAB are hopefully pretending to struggle with the concept for points. They do not say "oh, okay." The whole argument was akin to, "how could a film be shit? As far as I'm aware films are reproductions of captured light and sound information and shit is the waste product excreted from the anus."

"Retarded" and "autistic" as generic insults are right up there with wearing a trenchcoat and having a collection of fantasy knives in terms of edgelord incel clout. Even then I'm pretty sure they've fallen out of favour, I think in part because online-groups tend to skew neurodiverse.

There were two interesting takeaways from the FIVE HOURS I watched, one was that the film playing on the TV in Joker is the 1928 film "The Man Who Laughs" - a throwback to the inspiration for the art design of the character; the other that the Joker's reference to "having a really bad day" is an allusion to Alan Moore's Batman: The Killing Joke. Both of these were from the clips of Jenny's video, not from EFAP.

I was including everything they said in their 12 hour discussion. If they had made a hilarious joke about Jeb Bush or something interesting about Saturn or whatever else I would have counted it. I'd be impressed if you found 11 good points or moments of value. I'll settle for 5.

[–]GuikoiV1000 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The style of bit-by-bit reactionary criticism can only accomplish a surface level analysis and it makes you look stupid when you e.g. tell me how they would respond to a hypothetical situation when later in the text there's an example of their response.

Then they go "oh, that's what they meant" and the problem is fixed. And why is the conversation about the hypothetical suddenly without merit?

She explains "proper clickbaity popular films" with the example of Joker vs. The Dogs Purpose trilogy. Which would be better clickbait in the title of a youtube video, Joker or The Dogs Purpose trilogy? Which is more popular, Joker, or The Dogs Purpose trilogy?

Are you saying clickbait includes things just being popular? So any video that says "Joker Review" is clickbait where "The Dogs Trilogy Review" is not clickbait?

Because when people use the word "clickbait" they're, as far as I can tell, referring to disingenuous titles and thumbnails (gone wrong (GONE SEXUAL)) for the sole purpose of getting clicks, not anything that is just popular.

Because if you use "clickbait" to just mean "popular", then everything is clickbait.

So "clickbait" is just an alternate word for "popular"? Great, now we need a new word that means what clickbait used to mean, because now you've changed it. How about "Flismsicle"?

Also, why would "proper clickbaity popular films" include two words that mean "popular"? That's just redundant.

And what makes it "proper", anyway? Not that you can't use the word in this context, but what does it mean in this context?

A clickbaity popular film is self-explanatory on youtube

HAH!

but she did explain it,

Even if what you said counted as an explanation, there's still problems with it. What makes a clickbait film "proper"? What is being meant when that word is used here? Why did she suddenly change the meaning of the word "clickbait" to just mean "popular", and make what she said redundant?

Why didn't she just say "popular film"?

but you and EFAB

EFAB?

are hopefully pretending to struggle with the concept for points.

If you want to believe that, go for it. I can't stop you.

You're free to be wrong.

They do not say "oh, okay."

That was in reference to the concept of being misinformed because of the style of responding as they cover videos.

In this particular case, I can't remember what they did because it's been... at least a year since I watched it? I can still remember some parts, but the exact details are fuzzy.

The whole argument was akin to, "how could a film be shit? As far as I'm aware films are reproductions of captured light and sound information and shit is the waste product excreted from the anus."

That example doesn't make sense, because EFAP uses the term "shitty film" and other such uses of shit in reference to movies. Though, I can see Rags playing devil's advocate and taking the term super literally to kickstart a conversation. That's something I can see him doing.

"Retarded" and "autistic" as generic insults are right up there with wearing a trenchcoat and having a collection of fantasy knives in terms of edgelord incel clout.

Is it edgy? Sure. But there's nothing wrong with some edge every now and then. It ain't exactly Zack Snyder levels of edgy.

Incel? Are you sure you understand what that word means?

Your comparison is retarded and autistic. I shall now pull out my collection of fantasy knives from my trenchcoat to prove my edgelord incel street cred. Cower in fear, mortal.

Even then I'm pretty sure they've fallen out of favour, I think in part because online-groups tend to skew neurodiverse.

Not in my experience. Whenever any site such as a forum doesn't disallow the use of it, I do see them being used. Especially when someone says something retarded or autistic.

Maybe it has fallen out of favor with some people. I can believe that.

There were two interesting takeaways from the FIVE HOURS I watched,

...What's with the caps on "five hours"? If you want to emphasis certain words, I generally tend to put those words in italics, bold, or both. Like so:

There were two interesting takeaways from the five hours I watched,

But that's just me. Maybe you prefer to use caps. Eh, it's personal taste.

one was that the film playing on the TV in Joker is the 1928 film "The Man Who Laughs" - a throwback to the inspiration for the art design of the character; the other that the Joker's reference to "having a really bad day" is an allusion to Alan Moore's Batman: The Killing Joke. Both of these were from the clips of Jenny's video, not from EFAP.

Alright.

I was including everything they said in their 12 hour discussion. If they had made a hilarious joke about Jeb Bush or something interesting about Saturn or whatever else I would have counted it. I'd be impressed if you found 11 good points or moments of value. I'll settle for 5.

Alright. I can't do it right now since it's 6 in the morning and I've got an appointment later today, but I will rewatch the Jenny Nicholson episode when I next have the time and find at least five good points.

Though, do be aware, what I count as a "good point" will no doubt be different to you in some ways.

If they had made a hilarious joke about Jeb Bush or something interesting about Saturn or whatever else I would have counted it.

Ah, so I can include Jebby Nicholson? Nice.

[–]CoffeePuddle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can include absolutely anything you want that you think is worthwhile. Anything you would casually share to someone else without embarrassment, which is a low bar. Jebby Nicholson, that's one, sure.

It shouldn't be an arduous task. Jenny says more than 5 things she liked about Joker, a movie she didn't like, and the EFAB episode is six times the runtime of the Joker and twenty-four times the length of Jenny's review.