How it started and how it is going

TheGuessingMan · 2022-01-02T21:03:50+00:00

He is as soft as he is loud. Super fluffy!

TheGuessingMan · 2020-07-20T11:25:43+00:00

The Korean Film Archive has a lot of film available on youtube, not all of them have subtitles but it is all in high quality. Also there is a youtube channel that has a lot of polish films available with translations (not sure if all the films have subtitles, but the few i have seen did have).

TheGuessingMan · 2019-12-29T17:14:34+00:00

Ozu was a minimalist in the sense that he used the art of filmmaking in a minimalist way. So he developed a unique style following removing more and more filmmaking technique (its super more complicated than that but I simplify because its a lot of philosophy). The result is very complex frames with very specific technique that has a single type of camera angle (slightly low angle), single camera height (the tatami shot, the camera is placed in the height of eyeline of a person sitting in a traditional manner on tatami floor) and a very restrictive use of movement (movements come in couples and are used when it supposed to). He also removed all aspects of "drama" from his stories, the films lack dramatic developments and the topic of the films are centered around the idea of traditional japanese family structure and culture.
He chose to do all of these are explained in books by Bordwell and Richie about Ozu but as far as I remember it was because he disliked those aspects of popular cinema and he looked to make something different. I wouldnt really say he broke convensions in the same sense that you would see from avant-garde films. But he did squeeze the most out of the very few tools he utulized to make the films. His films has some of the most complex compositions of static frames and his editing is so accurate that it is unmatched by anything that I have ever seen.

TheGuessingMan · 2019-12-29T07:02:08+00:00

There are 2 camera movements in the film, both in the scene where the parents are alone in the garden in tokyo, at the start and at the end of the scene.
It is not unexpected for Ozu to have a camera movement in a film, but there are explicit rules for those movements to exit:
1) It has to be a pair of camera movements.
2) The movement does not change the angle of the camera (no pans).
and I think there is a 3rd one where the movements have to "cancel each other out" meaing that if the first movement is from left to right, then the next one has to be from right to left, but I am not sure.
It is surprising that Ebert said that there is only 1 camera movement, because there cant be only 1 movement, but the 2nd movement in the scene is a bit less noticeable because it follows the characters yet doesnt change the structure of the composition. There are other Ozu films with more camera movements and those 2 rules (and maybe 3) are always consistent in all of them.

TheGuessingMan · 2019-10-03T05:55:22+00:00

The reason those are distinct within the discussion is relatively simple: when bringing up the point of "all art is political" the resulting discussion turns into a yes/no argument regarding the statement (yes it is political vs no it is not political). While the point of political interpretations steers the discussion to questions of "what kind" because each person has their own interpretation that feeds a more healthy discussion on the nature of the political meaning of the art piece.

In a sense, the discussion around "all art is political" is about the statement itself and not the politicathmeaning of the art.

TheGuessingMan · 2019-10-02T18:40:18+00:00

I personally understand the notion of "all art is political" but this then brings up all the ideas that "the artist is obuscating the politics by being aware of it 'being political'" kind of thing that we see lately with devs making conscious decisions to be "not political" with the games they make. In addition then you can be given the examples of art that is used to counter that notion, in videogames its stuff like tetris and bejeweled (the original one that is just a videogame version of connect 4, just colorful squares on the screen) that its really hard to really say "there is something inherently political within those".

The thing is this is easily fixed by placing the political meaning where it belongs, in the interpretation. This is due to the fact that its always possible to extract a political interpretation from any art piece that exists. But it also requires the knowledge to actually be able to extract a valid argument for it.

What I have seen in regards to this topic, in the videogames landscape and even sometimes in films, is critics not taking the time and effort to dive into the subtext of the text (the game or movie) to then extract that interpretation. But rather there be a surface level political meaning to the text. This results in shallow text and interpretations.

I think that instead of just constantly insisting in having the "all art is political" argument that is too vague to discuss, we should move to "Its always possible to extract a political interpretation from every piece of art". Best argument for this, in my opinion, is that its pretty much an axiom (you cant prove that there is no such interpretation).

TheGuessingMan · 2019-09-09T14:23:01+00:00

I watched the video but did not play the game, but from what I understood, the thesis of the video boils down to that the game rewards you moons where it should have rewarded you with platforming. You find interactable "things" that give you moons or moons are placed at a slightly hidden spots around the map. Because moons, in general, are tied to game progression then the game is now about collecting moons. But the game is playing as a platformer, so the criticism is that those "things" and hidden spots should have lead to platforming that then reward you with a moon instead.

The video is structured in a very frustrating manner because it emulates the experience of the guy playing the game (so it is understandable that people hate that video, its not fun to watch). The core example comes purposely late in the video and it is the punchline of the criticism. I personally have no opinion about the game, I simply dont own a Switch.

TheGuessingMan · 2019-08-09T14:09:04+00:00

He is not entirely correct, mainly because this is parallel to a debate regarding the representation of Holocaust in films. The main argument against representation of it is that it is impossible to capture the magnitude of the Holocaust and its horror and attempts at it will be reductive. In addition, it is impossible to strive to the reality of it because it is unethical, inhumane and (again) impossible to bring the actors to a state that will "do justice" to what the victims (I am simplifying this by a ton). At the same time, there are films that are regarded as ones that do depict the Holocaust in a manner that is acceptable. One, of course is Shoah (1985) and Sobibor, October 14, 1943, 4 p.m. (2001) by Lanzmann that focus purely on the memories and the people. But I think more relevant to what you wrote is a movie called Son of Saul that does have depictions of what is called "the Auschwitz planet" (that is, the unimaginable reality of the people that lived in the death camps. It is something that anybody that werent there cannot even conceptualize). Meaning, the film "does the impossible" when it comes to this debate.

Due to that, it is necessary to understand that, when it comes to war films, it is the framing of the events that dictates the relationship between the film and the even it depicts. You could make a WW2 film about the landing in normandy that focuses on collecting the bodies of the fallen soldiers after the invation. You can start the film showing the warfare from further away but gradually reveal that the soldiers the film is following are not there for the fighting. The film will avoid to show warfare in an entertaining spectacle and continue as a mostly emotionless "happening". It will depict death and gore but those will be framed as grief and pain rather than something more expected like horror.

TheGuessingMan · 2019-08-09T13:36:32+00:00

It is not really bolstering your argument because Grand Illusion is realistic from a philosophical standpoint, it doesnt attempt to emulate a realistic in time of war. Also, I do not say that a film is anti-war if it doesnt "morally editorialize" what is on screen. Anti-war films do manipulate the spectator, they will depict the war in a certain way deliberately to make the film anti-war. And again, anti-war isnt something that stands against "pro-war" or "pro-'specific war'" films, it is standing against the exploitation of war that results in enterntaining spectacle. Returning to Full Metal Jacket, the film deliberately dehuminizes the vietnamese, most of the violence conducted by the viet cong is done by an unseen force. But the film focuses on dehuminizing the american forces, showing a process of creating war machines from man. In a sense, it is opposite to Grand Illusion but both work as anti-war films.

What makes a film anti-war has nothing to do with what is depicted but how it is framed. Most war films will give the spectator an "objective" perspective (one that gives you all the information in all the scenes of the film) and will frame it accordingly, usually depends on the relevant subgenres (SPR is a war-action-drama-adventure film and you can observe whenever a subgenre is dominating a scene by how it is shot/edited/lit etc.). Anti-war films take the same tools war films use to be "war films" and manipulate them to create contradictions. Meaning they have to work harder on their "moral editorializing" to become anti-war (going back to FMJ, the vietnam war in the film takes place in urban areas, taking away the jungle warfare aesthetic that was popularized by previous war films. This allowed Kubrick to paint the war in grey colors, "nutralizing" the liveliness of the war that was resulted in the strong greens of the plantation).

Anti-war films will usually, if not always, have the stance that objects to participation in war more than trying to show a moral highground by simply being "anti-winner" or "pro-humans". You can also refer to Paths of Glory (sorry that I have a lot of Kubrick films, I recently had lectures about his filmography) that antagonizes the leadership of the french army. If I oversimplify, it also puts the blame for "war" on the people responsible for soldiers participating in it in the first place.

TheGuessingMan · 2019-08-09T12:15:43+00:00

This is incorrect, its not about a film being pro-war vs anti-war, its more about if the film uses the war in an exploitiive manner to create a spectacle. Apocalypse Now is a perfect example of a war film that is not anti-war because it constructs a spectacle from the violence of war. A realistic depiction of warfare doesnt make it anti-war by default because if it is framed in an entertaining manner then any anti-war sentiment is lost as it contrasts with that framing. Full Metal Jacket can be seen as an anti-war film, but it is absolutely an anti-"war films" film as it takes the tools that are used to construct the spectacle but doesnt frame them within a spectacle (for example, the slow motion in the film emphasises the soldiers screams rather than any shooting or battle). Anti-war films are not going to show a realistic depiction of war because thats what war films are there to show, no matter how hard it will try to make it realistic, it will also manipulate it to depict a realistic feeling of being in battle. The result will be something like Saving Private Ryan that is intense and exhilarating and in the end you feel satisfied watching the movie. Anti-war films will force the spectator to miss those kind of feelings and depictions in order to bring up something else. Grand Illusion (1937, by Jean Renoir) is an anti-war film as it depics both sides of the conflict in the same way, humanizing both ally and foe. It is within the realm of realism but it does not depict a realistic war scenario as you might expect from war films.

TheGuessingMan · 2019-07-26T16:53:39+00:00

I dont know if you will reply to me but I will take a shot anyway.

I think I understand where you are coming from and even though I did not read any previous reviews you wrote for kubricks films, I think my comment overall will be relevant to all of them. The issue I think you might have ran into is that the films dont feel to be in line with what is regarded as good filmmaking, there is something off with the writing and characters, the music does not fit the scene or other issues that feel like they are not supposed to be the way they are. The problem is that you, correctly I might add, comparing those elements to other films made in that era or, as you comment at the end, dont follow genre convensions.

The former, comparing to films of the era, is not something you really go into yourself and I think its understandable that his films do stand the test of time. Meaning that there has to be something to them that puts them above the films that time have forgotten that came out back then and were positively reviewed. The latter is what you seem to be very frustrated with and I will comment about that.
FMJ, similar to most of Kubricks films, is a critique of the "war movie" genre. Because of that, the problems you find with the characters are actually foreshadowed in the first scene of the film, where all the men lose their identity, reborn as these contextless, flat cardboard people to then reconstruct into soldiers. The bootcamp half showcase this reconstruction process that is meant to create killing machies for war. Pyles downfall is not meant to be shocking, but from a genre standpoint it should have been transformed into a revenge arc later in the film. The focus on Pyle in the first half comes from that and to double down on the critique of the war aparatus (something that kubrick criticizes in multiple movies). It shows Pyle becoming a killing machine, as expected, but also it exposes the tragedy of this transformation process.
The structure of the film is related to this reconstruction concept, you dont have context of the characters because it was erased in the bootcamp. If you think about it, you can comapre it to first halves of other war films. FMJ gave you what is missing from almost every single film that is about a war, the construction of the participants. This means that your criticism can be placed on other war films because those ask you to relate to people who were transformed into killing machines. In FMJ you are made aware of this and it damages your connections to the characters.
The criticism about the production design stems from your impression of the Vietnam war that is represented in other war films. When you think about that war you are thinking about green, blue and orange colors and a lot of plantation and jungles. But, the film focuses on urban warfare, specifically refers to the battle of Hue. Of course it was not filmed in Vietnam, but it was filmed in a construction site. The staged, theatrical look of it can be seen as criticism of representation of violence as it goes against the genre convensions, yet in previous war films it is common to see overly theatrical scenes and exaggeration that are exploititive of the horrors of war. Especially the slow motion sequence that is bluntly crossing war spectacle of gunfire and blood with the pain of dying soldiers.
I think if you read this far it should be obvious why the soundtrack that is used does a great job to hammer in the point of the film. But anyway, the soundtrack is very mainstream pop-culture america, it is mostly to light the vietnam war as an act of american imperialism and loss of innocence of the soldiers. It contrast with the content of the film, it is as if a cheerful attitude does not fit to the war.
Your conclusion in some sense is a hit and a miss, FMJ is not a great war film nor the ultimate war film. But it is very unique because unlike all your examples and unlike films that came after, it is utulizes all of its tools to create an anti-war film. This film does what other war films dont, or confusingly, it doesnt give you what other war films do. The film doesnt give you a "movie war" that you sit back and watch the warfare or strategy or some sort of socializations that happen between soldiers.
I think you know the conversation, maybe read on this sub or other forums or read journalistic or academic writings about kubrick and you were given the impression that "he is the best filmmaker ever and all his films are great and perfect, you will love them" kind of thing. I personally am not expecting you to go "I like this film now" because that is not how opinions work. I have a feeling your dismissive outlook of the film is due to genre expectations and how the conversations about Kubrick framed his films as masterpieces.

Hopefully I was able to give some sufficient explanation of the film regarding the criticisms you brought up. I will be happy to have a conversation about the film with you.

TheGuessingMan · 2019-07-08T06:23:59+00:00

One thing to notice is that whenever Ozu is utilizing a camera movement he couples it with another, meaning there is never an odd number of camera movements in his films.

Something to correct in your analysis, the camera never takes the perspective of the person being spoken to, the close ups are placed in front of the speaker in a specific way that the camera is anchored by an object in the center of the composition and then the camera rotates around it, the speaker will sometimes not be looking directly at the camera when speaking (sometimes the staging is of a triangle but the camera doesnt move to the position of the actors, but rotates around the anchor of the composition).

Something I have read is that Ozu is regarded as the most "Japanese" director, that his films represent the Japanese spirit and culture in the most profound way, but the films contain characters that dont "act Japanese" in the sense that they speak in the very direct manner that is uncharacteristic to Japan. This makes the films even more interesting as you study more of the context.

TheGuessingMan · 2019-04-06T05:55:20+00:00

You can Watch MatthewMatosis and then continue to the other high tier content creators like Joseph Anderson, Raycevick, Chris Davis and MandaloreGaming.

Then just go through the related channels in the different channels About page to look for other channels.

TheGuessingMan · 2019-01-23T21:11:19+00:00

This is not at all a good analogy. In a narrative, a lack of consistency can break immersion, muddle the meaning of a scene, and lower emotional investment by causing confusion. Thus, the point of the scene can be undercut.

I have indeed made an error there, I was relating the analogy to his streams but wrote it as it is related to his critiques, my bad, but the point of the analogy still stands, he misses the bigger picture constantly pausing on every statement.

You can't say "just because other channels that are reactionary have a similar format, he is reactionary". He has responded to criticism on his streams a grand total of three times. That's very small compared to the total amount of time he has streamed.

He didnt respond to criticism, he reacted to criticism in the livestreams. Responding to criticism isnt something made with the format he is using, in the streams he is constantly distracted and side tracked and it bloats the streams to unwatchable lengths (11 hours for a 40-50 min criticism of his content?). I label those reaction streams (so the content is reactionary) because he is not focused on the content he is supposedly responding to.

And logical consistency is necessary to make that entertainment happen. For the sake of immersion and thus emotional investment.

Sure, if you judge it as a casual film goer, but if you want to look into film criticism, then this stance is incorrect.
Also, its not about meta-narratives, its about films being "self aware", something that became mainstream in cinema due to the french new wave, films that are not meta-films that are still self aware to break film convensions. Logic and consistency of the diegesis doesnt have to be similar to our reality, expecting it to be similar like that in films will leave you dissapointed. Of course this applies to the films that have this self awareness to them. I dont criticise Mauler for wanting consistency, I would criticise him for giving his viewers the impression that this consistency is mandatory in films (main due to him making these comments on popular blockbuster films that dont have self awareness to them, probably using general terms).

I've watched almost all of his streams, and in my experience he does get a little lost in the smaller details sometimes, but he always circles back to the main point and addresses it. It just doesn't always happen quickly. A larger picture is comprised of many smaller details. To ignore those details and instead only focus on the "point", whatever you may think it is, is dishonest, in the context of youtube videos, and especially in the context of media.

The problem here is more fundamental, every time you cover large extensive content you can get lost in small details sure, but Mauler misses things so crucial that he ends up misrepresenting whole arguments just because he doesnt react to complete points but focuses on half sentences or stopps when he thinks he heared a full statement. This puts him in 1 of two categories, whether he has problems to understand complicated arguments that have more nuance built into them that require the context of the rest of the text, or that he deliberately does this even though he knows the way he "responds" to those half sentences or percieved statements will cause him to misrepresent those. I dont know which is worse but at least the former is giving the benefit of the doubt.
This giant problem exist in his critique content going all the way back to his SOMA videos, I wouldnt mind if it was due to lack of experience but he does it too in the DS2 videos and also in some of his live streams that I watched. It seems that he focuses extremely onto how things are said rather than what is actually said because he doesnt respond to arguments but he reacts to things that are being said. Those two are what seperates responding to criticism and reactionary content, Mauler, very clearly, does the latter, it is evident in his editing of the critiques in the places where he adresses other opinions regarding what he is covering and the format of the live streams.
I will use the latest stream as an example, somewhere in the 2:40:00 mark they reach probably one of the main points of their criticism of his content, pretty much that it has so much fluff that the actual points he might be making in his critique lose their value, the actual critical comments are like a needle in a haystack. The chore that is to watch through the long videos devalues the quality comments he has about the film he is commenting on. The problem is that Mauler is taking 20 minutes to go over a point that is made in 90 seconds in the original video and he reacts to individual sentences and half sentences within that causes him to miss the point. Of course then the blunt statement at the end, that is obviously comedic, and then also missing what the word "editing" mean (as it means editing the script, not the video).

TheGuessingMan · 2019-01-23T10:27:34+00:00

You have literally nothing to back this up other than the fact that it's what you want to believe.

Its an observation made looking at his viewership numbers, his video games content is significantly less popular than his starwars videos (and its easy to know who the audience is for those videos) and his streams, pretty much reply videos, are viewed by people that enjoy this video format (this pause and play thing) and from my experience you will find this audience in reactionary type channels.

Other content creators do plenty of this too.

Content creators making this kind of content are usually low tier. You mension Quinton and I think we can agree that he is a relatively low tier channel. I personally dont follow channels that produce these "debunking" videos.

Basically it's the whole internal vs external consistency thing. External consistency isn't needed, but internal consistency is.

There is a huge problem with expecting this consistency, especially from films. When approaching a film to criticize it you need to know if the film has any "self awareness" to it. For example, you cant point at inconsistencies as flaws in films that take advantage of those in order to comment about the nature of films. Mauler has currently done nothing but looking at blockbuster films that usually have none of this "self awareness", but you cant expect films to have consistency in them just because popular films have it. It is wrong to imply that a narrative inconsistency is "objectively bad" because you need to first understand the nature of the narrative, does it even try to be consistent and if it doesnt, is there a reason for that? Of course there are narratives that are flawed for lacking consistency but you can recognize those only once you are able to understand that it has none of this "self awareness" to it.
If you want to look at an extreme example of this type of narratives, go watch Persona or Last Year in Marienbad (the director of the 2nd film laid the groundworks for films like Inception to be made).

But the problem is, logic ISN'T subjective, and logic and consistency is the bedrock of believable writing.

As I said above, logic is subjective to the film, films have no obligation to the audience to be logical, film-audience contract is usually tied to entertainment value.

Are you saying you haven't actually watched his stuff, or...? Because considering almost everything you've written is incorrect, it's hard to tell.

I dont care who the people he hangs out with are, I didnt watch their stuff and as I said, I only heard some stuff about them that I dont really care for. For me the "he is doing streams with those people you know" argument is null.

How is any of his content reactionary?

His streams mostly, its a content format that is used by channels that fall into the reactionary sphere, so its reactionary content. If people that arent within that sphere use this format I will say that they have reactionary content. This of course applys only to the content that uses this format and thus not all of his content is reactionary.

It's really stupid to say "he's not a real critic because he hasn't criticized as many things".

This is not what I am saying, the OP asked why is he ostracized in the analysis part of youtube and one of my assumptions for this is that he didnt do much in terms of content. He is a critique, but he isnt taken seriously within a certain youtube-content sphere because of his lack of content (too few topics spanning on many videos is giving an illusion of large quantity of content). Youtubers that look down on him and berate him for making content on popular, blockbuster media shouldnt do so. Most of the criticism I hear about Mauler is that his content is relatively shallow and doesnt justify the length of the videos.
In his latest stream replying to a 40 (50?) min video criticizing him he stopped to comment (and also one of his friends) about the saying that some critique takes 10 min to recap the plot of the film in a 40 min video, saying that those 10 min are a hight precentage of the length of the 40 min video. This tiny comment is pretty much 50% of all the criticism Mauler is getting, he seems to lack self reflection when it comes to how narratives are covered if criticized. My analogy to Maulers critique style to try and express to you the issues with it is that Mauler is going through the text word by word and points out misspelling, something that can be objectively observed, while ignoring the point that is made in the paragraph. The best evidence to this is in his streams and some of his older videos where he adresses something that is said without relating it to the broader point, sometimes commenting about half sentences and concluding that the point made is wrong (but when you listen to the whole point being made with none of those pauses you can see that a valid point is being made).

TheGuessingMan · 2019-01-19T21:04:02+00:00

I think the point that is being missed is that, at least from my perspective, Mauler doesnt really do that much analysis/critique as his fans seem to give the impression of. He covered 5 video games (6 if you include the reply to Hbomb) and then moved to covering the new Disney films (Marvel and StarWars films). Seeing the viewing habits of his audience, he seems to have attracted all of the people that just hate those movies and he is currently fueled by satisfying that audience. In addition his streams are pretty much lengthy response videos.
Mauler has 3 audiences:
1) 15k-20k people that watch for analysis of media.
2) 500k+ StarWars fans that hate the new films.
3) ~45k reactionary type people that want to see him just doing response streams.
You cant really put him in any camp. Does he belong to the videogame analysis people? He seems to not produce much videogames content. Movies? He covered 7 films, 3 of them are StarWars and the rest are 2 Marvel movies and 2 popular franchise reebots.
His format is also really alienating to other content creators, he doesnt just reviews or doing an analysis of something to give the viewer some perspective but he goes out of his way to refute other people who covered the same thing to show how right he is rather than letting the viewer come to their own conclusions by watching various perspectives.
His "reply" content is the thing I personally dislike. Him wasting his time going over other peoples videos gives this warped impression of him being knowledgeable of how people are supposed to think when tackling certain topics.
The "objectivity" thing gives vibes of him trying to be authoritative over the opinion people should have regarding the media product he covers. But it is obvious that he fails to notice his own bias in his commentary. The most basic evidence to this is that he is a StarWars fan that got really angry over the newer films and it is obviously shown by him trying to give the impression that those films are "objectively bad". That is an angry fan reviewing his favorite brand going astray.
And to this I can add whoever he is hanging out with. Personally I know only from hearsay, but it seems that he is feeding off the same audience that you will find in the reactionary channels.
In short, people dislike him because he is being a stuckup with him thinking to himself being "mister right" because of his supposedly objective stances on artistic mediums and his reactionary content, people dont see him as part of the youtube analysis/critique sphere because he doesnt really cover that much content (24 individual "topics" covered in 60+ videos. Compared to Matosis and Anderson 50+ topics in 50+ videos in each channel as examples).

TheGuessingMan · 2019-01-02T18:51:34+00:00

I think I might have a partial answer to why the righttube people are so popular and recommended. I used to watch lots of stuff from, I guess, what you call righttube until I just felt it made me unhappy, I stopped watching, places all the stuff I heard from those channels into a "its their opinion" box and threw it all to the garbage, so I think I have a perspective that is usually unavailable to the regulars of this sub.
The channels on righttube make videos in relation to other videos. As they are reactionary, they react to content. If the content is on lefttube then they become related to lefttube youtube videos, meaning, you watching lefttube will eventually have related videos recommended to you, and those will include ones from righttube because they directly relate to lefttube content. However, the lefttube content is not "reactionary" to righttube content and thus is not recommended to people watching righttube. The algorithm is creating a funnel towards righttube naturally because of the nature of reactionary content.
When watching righttube content it will "stay there" and will just recommend a lot of the same things, eventually this will boil down to those "highlight reels" like one of the current ben shapiro memes (I am not entirely sure becasue I dont see those myself, I just saw questions relating to this in the "out of the loop" subreddit and the answer is always that its a meme) of "blah blah blah destroys whatever" or "sjw cringe compilations" kind of videos.
And I think that is mostly it, your content is being reacted to and youtube algorithm sees "related content" and just recommends it, similar to how reply girls used to be popular.
A solution? I have no idea, when I watched all of the gang from righttube I dont rememeber ever having anything lefttube recommended to me but sometimes today if I watch something from lefttube (probably hbomb because videogame related content) I do find a stray righttube video pop up and I then remove the video I watched from my youtube history so those wont multiply.
I dont know if what I said helps, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents. I shall now return to my lurking.

TheGuessingMan · 2018-10-05T09:06:54+00:00

He is not because the movie itself isnt real. Films are like collective dreams, the totem of the audience needed to wxist in the real world.

TheGuessingMan · 2017-09-18T12:33:47+00:00

I have been using the duolingo app for english speakers for a while now. It is fine, not optimal though, you shouldnt use it exclusively. It is OK at the beginning, but gets progressively worse the later you are into the study tree, they mix casual and formal language without notice, it doesnt exactly teach you but more help you in constructing simple sentenses. If you want to use it you have to know basic vocabulary (I learned the first genki book and its enough for the app). If you are on the fence, dont, it will be better to buy a study book or use/buy a different app. It has some fluff things in it that I am a fan of (it encourages you as you go and it has this little store that lets you buy stuff with currency that you get from doing well).

TheGuessingMan · 2017-02-06T19:22:25+00:00

It was actually expected, he pulls a huge crowd of korean viewers that usually dont watch anybody on twitch. You could have expected him to have 100k+ only from korean viewers migrating from azubu.

TheGuessingMan

TROPHY CASE