How to separate the best YouTube critics from the bad ones? What makes these people/crews so alluring and intelligent? How did/do they stand out from the mass number of ambitious reviewers across the world?
This idea is great, but Ryan Errington recently wrote an article that discussed YouTube critics. Luckily, he was comparing them to actual film critics, and wasn't really talking about the separation between a good and a bad internet critic. You could certainly talk about how some critics (like TheReelRejects) are fun to watch, but aren't all that analytical in their work. I remember watching some of the reviews on their YT channel and realizing that not a single movie they talked about got a bad review. This isn't necessarily bad, but it also lacks seriousness. It's too much like you and a couple of friends got together to talk about how cool the surface details (e.g. performances, music, and special effects) were, but completely forgot to talk about the themes and morals that the story presented. In contrast, there are many film critics and analysts on YT that offer wonderful insights into how movies are made and how they are meaningful works of art. Tony Zhou of Every Frame a Painting is a great example, as is Chris Stuckmann. Also, you could talk about how some critics are more theatrical in their approach to reviewing films, like Doug Walker of Nostalgia Critic fame or Mike Stoklasa, who created the now famous Mr. Plinkett series and who co-created Half in the Bag, which is a fairly laid back program that seriously discusses movies, with some silly (one may call them flat out stupid) comedic interludes. Whether it's a list, or just a division of each kind, there is a whole lot of material for this topic. – August Merz7 years ago
Want to write about Web Videos or other art forms?