17/03/18 - 12:56 PM

Author Topic: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide  (Read 3398 times)

Offline FritzyBeat

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2016, 01:10:29 AM »
I've seen several of this guy's videos and, honestly, I don't think he's as bad as most people flag him as. Sure, his criticisms aren't perfect, but he does raise a few points and you can tell that he's being honest. And unlike a lot of other critics who critique the franchise, he doesn't bash the series. If anything, his critiques fall more into constructive criticism.

I also find it funny how people are quick to dismiss him as a "Boom" hater, when he's stated on other videos that he enjoys the show. But just because one enjoys a show, that doesn't mean you can't critique it. I mean, I enjoy SatAM and "Underground", but they're both just as flawed as "Boom".

^Basically this.

I actually enjoy a good many of his videos, the stuff on the "True Sonic Spirit" channel I think it's called, is especially interesting.

Do I think that sometimes they (on the TSS channel) get a LITTLE too passionate about a video game of all things? yeah sure. But the points that are brought up are often very interesting points to consider. For anyone watching, I'd suggest going into his videos with a little of our own advice. Don't decide you hate something before you even watch it ;P *shot*

Just glancing at it I would have brushed it off as another weird "Let's Make Sonic Great Again" thing, but the videos do actually share some very interesting and intriguing thoughts.

Offline Kelli

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2016, 07:44:22 AM »
I'm an old friend of Roger so I might sound biased. :p but I do like his videos and I understand where he is coming from. He enjoys the Boom show but it does bother him how much of the characters have been changed and flaunderized. Which I agree with, something that I also notice in the fandom is how acceptance the fandom is of how Boom changed Amy's personality. Yeah you could argue its for the better but it does confirm my suspicion that a lot of Amy fans like an idealized version of her not her true character. (Hence why so many fan art poytray a different Amy Rose)  That's just my food for thought.

I do agree that Roger can get too passionate and too serious on the subject but I think we all can get too serious about other franchises as well. As for his voice I like to remind everyone that Roger is Dutch, and with a lot of us Dutch people when we speak English our accent kinda messes up a lot of how we talk in English.

Off topic I also inspired his anti Ken Penders joke in one of his latest videos and I am so proud  :D

Singapore Sling

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2016, 10:24:25 AM »
It's not so much that he's too serious, at least for me, as much as his thoughts blatantly contradict themselves, he shows an incredible misunderstanding of concepts (again, what he thinks a "character comedy" is) that you can point to being objectively wrong but it's this stuff that he filters his ENTIRE points through, and people who like him never actually explain why he's intelligent other than "He cares about Sonic" and "He has interesting points."

Nobody's ever able to actually sit down and explain what about his points don't contradict themselves. They just say he raises good points, while ignoring his logical fallacies. Again, why would you do an entire video about the brand confusion of Sonic Boom and make several claims about how you think the writers behind the brand think about their work but never ACTUALLY cite their words except for one offhand producer? Why is he willing to cite the Fire and Ice producer to prove his point, but he won't cite the words of Freiberger when he's claiming Freiberger must think he's writing an adventurous character? Why is he making weird little choices like that?

Again, this isn't "he takes himself too seriously." This isn't "He pronounces some words differently because of a cultural difference." This isn't, like the Swordsman claims, using fandom slang that just changes overtime. These are actual, quantifiable, objective logical errors that you straight up do not do if you're putting together a commentary or analysis because they are biased AGAINST your material. He's a living confirmation bias, only showing information that proves he's right and VERY OBVIOUSLY not factoring in information that would probably disprove his point. He makes no attempt to make an actual "Dissection" of his material, just barrels through riding on a sea of logical fallacies to talk about something without actually giving it an in-depth look.

And every time I point out that his videos don't make sense, are full of logical fallacies, and he blatantly contradicts himself and can't actually throw his own points together in a way that doesn't make them all fall apart, people always defend him for things that aren't what I'm talking about. Which, if you're not directly talking to me, is fine, but given I'm the only outspokenly negative person in the thread and I keep looking at posts that admit "Yeah, he does this thing but..." and it's none of the things I think make him fall apart, it does get frustrating. It's frustrating because every fanbase for these all ages properties does this. There's always that one guy who thinks he's an expert and does some big analysis and every time, it's always full of weird little fallacies that reveal that he probably doesn't actually know much of what he's talking about.

He outright insults Freiberger and then afterwards, cites the words of a Fire and Ice producer that happens to make him sound right...but of course, no words from Freiberger. That is a blatant logical fallacy, and it's a trick of rhetoric: by citing one producer, it gives the illusion that what he's talking about is sourced and objective, so when he makes blatant, factually incorrect statements with the BLATANT INTENT TO INSULT, well, gee, he made that one citation later so THIS must be right too! But suspiciously there're no indications from Freiberger cited in the video to indicate his views on his own characters, but this is the claim he uses to basically justify insulting Freiberger's intelligence or competency at his job. It can't be because he couldn't actually back up what he thought, could it?

(Yes, it could.)

Or the weird differences between a "comedy character" having only negative traits or an "action comedy character" having positive traits, even when his own cited footage proves him wrong. When he talks about things he previously said weren't possible and never acknowledges the contradiction but keeps talking like he's an expert. This isn't mispronouncing. This isn't fandom language changing to the point where I'm grumpy and old and won't accept it. This is a person talking about comedy as an art form and objectively not knowing how comedy works by creating incredibly arbitrary distinctions that maybe only make sense if your ONLY perspective on storytelling and literature is Sonic the Hedgehog.

It feels like the Emperor's New Clothes, where I can see the emperor just prancing around naked and everyone else is talking about how gorgeous his coat looks. Every time this guy's videos come up in a conversation I've been in, everyone always says he makes great points but can never explain WHY he does. They can never explain. They just say "He makes interesting points" and make little, nonsensical excuses for things that aren't even a problem with his videos. And you know, the only people who like him or find him interesting happen to be the ones who agree with him. I can think of many people I find interesting who I don't agree with (Max Landis, the Red Letter Media people, Roger Ebert, etc.), but for some reason Roger's fans never seem to present the same level of self awareness. It's always "I agree with him, he makes interesting points," as if...y'know, they already had their opinions and decided to agree with the guy who made a long "analytical" video about them since, y'know, he made a long video, he must be smart.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but the impression I've always gotten is that Roger's following is based less around his own purported intelligence and ability to collect his thoughts and more based around the fact people just found someone they agree with who happens to make long dissection videos. For a fanbase that wants their wishes to be taken seriously by the production company of their favorite franchise, it seems incredibly eager to align itself with someone who makes them sound contradictory and practically dumb just because he happens to agree with them.

I'd love to be proven wrong, though. And I don't mean that sarcastically. If there's an actual defense for how shoddily he puts together his viewpoints beyond "I think he's interesting", I'd be interested in hearing it. But it always feels like he's praised because of the inherent confirmation bias of fandom, where they're going to agree with someone's dissection because he's arguing for something they already believe is true...the little details be damned. If I was Sega, I wouldn't take that fanbase seriously either.

« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 10:26:02 AM by Singapore Sling »

Offline Kelli

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2016, 10:38:48 AM »
Dude Singapore Sling, it's alright if you don't like him but your words come come of as condescending as if were wrong for liking him or agreeing with him there is no need to make such negative assumptions about his fans either. You make it seem that you are competently in the right no mather what. When tastes and opinions will always be different. 

When I got some more free time next week I wouldn't mind defending Roger and explaining why but I feel that I just be met with another wall of text with ''you are wrong, I am right!'' it almost looks like you dislike Roger more then you should. (I mean in the way that, this should not effect you that much.)

You can point our Roger's mistakes and flaws without making comments how he is dumb. There is no need for insults.
Checkoutmyart at DA: http://kell0x.deviantart.com/

Singapore Sling

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2016, 11:57:58 AM »
You can point our Roger's mistakes and flaws without making comments how he is dumb. There is no need for insults.

...but he can insult Freiberger and it's fine?

Like, he's intentionally misconstruing someone to make him look as dumb as possible in his "dissection" and this is considered a well thought out analysis. But if I call out the fact it's just a heap of logical fallacies nobody ever defends and maybe they're just agreeing with him because he agrees with them, I'm the condescending one? If he's just straight calling someone an idiot for no other reason than he doesn't like his writing for a show for eight year olds, maybe he and those who agree with him could stand for at least a little ribbing.

Though I will stand by I've not directly insulted anyone who supports him while discussing in this thread. I've made assumptions that people are free to explain are wrong, yes, but I've never directly insulted anyone.

And yes, it does bother me. He acts high and mighty like an elitist prick despite the fact he has incredibly poorly thought out opinions and has a very tenuous understanding of the concepts he talks about. He's willing to insult the Boom writers, and I mean REALLY insult them. Criticizing their writing, even calling them bad writers, that's completely fine. I don't see anything wrong with that. But when he's making accusations that the Boom writers must be so dumb they think they're writing something when they're writing the opposite, and refuses to cite their perspective on their own work but assumes he's right, that's wrong. That is not an okay thing to do in something you're calling a dissection. That is insulting people because you think their cartoon they never intended you to watch is mediocre.

That is not appropriate. Especially when he later cites the words of a Fire and Ice producer to get his opinion, so you KNOW if he wanted, he could get the opinion of Freiberger, Daily, and their writing staff. You know he COULD, he's proven he's able to actually search for and cite information. But he WILLINGLY doesn't. Because he'd rather insult their intelligence instead, because his dissections show no interest whatsoever in what these people he's insulting and calling bad at their jobs have to say unless they say something (out of context, even, since it's not like he's citing the FULL breakdown of Fire and Ice) that happens to sound like it proves him right. That's not dissection. That's not analysis. He could've done an actual analysis of the conflicting perspectives of Freiberger, Frost, and whoever else. He could have. He didn't. He chose to frame them in a heavily biased way to make them look as stupid as possible and went BEYOND just criticizing their work.

I am not a jerk for pointing out that this is blatantly skewed, intentionally manipulated, to make the people Roger doesn't like look as stupid as possible and that this is intellectually dishonest and only serving to appease a disgruntled mass of fans who want to be told they're right. If my accusation is wrong, prove to me I'm wrong. I'm not being sarcastic when I am inviting someone to prove me wrong.

And yes, that does bother me. I don't like this buttmad, entitled nerd stuff. I've been in media productions and watch them get cancelled, delayed, etc. over the most insignificant, stupid stuff (mostly funding and budget cuts, which admittedly is NOT that stupid or insignificant). Actually being able to break into something and get it made is a challenge in its own right. That doesn't mean work shouldn't be criticized. If someone indulged in it, they have a right to their opinion of it. But that does not really excuse creating a big analysis video that tries to talk to a writing staff and assume they're functionally illiterate for not adhering to a couple words on a website. Roger purports to do just an analysis of the writing, but he willingly and gleefully insults the people who DO the writing while also intentionally masking and withholding their actual perspective on what they're doing so that he can insinuate that the only way they could've written the show the way they have is because they're stupid.

The logical fallacies, the fact that he has a really narrow minded opinion of what the genres of comedy are? That stuff is really irritating and headscratching, but it's also pretty secondary. If you're really telling me I shouldn't be harsh on Roger's opinions and how Roger conducts himself as a person in his videos because it's all "tastes and opinions", then it's only fair to at least acknowledge that Roger shouldn't assume an entire staff of people are illiterate dunces because their cartoon show doesn't match the words of a website.

All the stuff I'm doing? He's doing it in the video. But because it's to the Boom writers, since we just don't like Boom, it's apparently fine.

I may repeat myself (way too much) and act a little elitist myself, but you don't see me doing big analysis videos where I gleefully insult people's supposed lack of intelligence because I don't like their cartoon shows.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 12:02:41 PM by Singapore Sling »

Offline The Swordsman

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2016, 05:02:14 PM »
Singapore Sling no one so far has accused you of insulting any of us in this topic.  In earlier videos Roger does say he is no way an expert and these are just his thoughts and in my personal interactions with Roger he never came off as elitist prick. Like when I emailed about on not letting Captain Theory give his opinion on something (the Archie Comics if I remember right) he acknowledged it was wrong and has fixed the issue ever since.
"Stay in the light or we will drag you into it."-The Vigllant, TES: Skyrim
If you have Christ in your heart, copy this into your sig!

Re: Identity Crisis: Sonic Boom Characters Dissected by Roger Van der Weide
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2016, 08:36:27 PM »
So... many... words... nobody does a passionate throw down quite like Singapore ^-^

I haven't watched the series (one and a half hours? I mean, I have no life, but seriously... thats a really long time to listen to one guy rant on and on...) so I can't say much about this specifically. I have watched some of his previous analysis videos and I personally think he's better off making those animated parodies. I know little about making content and even less about making comedy, but I would say Singapore Sling (I totally just typed Mordum right then haha) is correct in that Roger's thoughts aren't very well organized. They don't offer much (if any) of the other side's point of view, which is something all the best analysis videos should do, even if it means possibly shooting down one's own argument. Of course, if you find his opinion interesting then that is still a perfectly legitimate reason to watch his content.
"Ya know Amy, anytime someone calls attention to the breaking of gender roles, it ultimately undermines the concept of gender equality by implying that this is an exception and not the status quo." -God