Month: August 2017

Are review shows taking over YouTube?

The first time I discovered YouTube it was to check out a friends short film he had posted to the site. It was a very no-budget 80’s b-action movie rip off. The acting was bad, the story was very basic and the special effects didn’t really exist. But it was a very interesting concept. Broadcast yourself. As a budding filmmaker I was excited for the potential. A world where indie and low budget filmmakers could showcase their works to the world. I immediately grabbed my camera, a group of friends and set out to produce a talk show where we would discuss comic books, video games and movies. I set up a desk, lights, microphones the whole nine yards. I was expecting to utilize this new technology to really capture that dream of alternative, user created content that would lower the barrier of entry.

I first started to notice things weren’t quite going as I pictured when I noticed the insanely popular viral video of two dorks lip syncing to the Mortal Kombat theme son g. While the short video was entertaining, at least good for a chuckle. I was shocked to learn the two who uploaded the video shot to super stardom almost over night. Of course I am referring to Smosh. It soon became a race to be the next viral super star and thus the race to the bottom began. There was that Numa Numa video, Soldier Boy Tell Em, and a host of other copy cats. I hadn’t lost hope yet, I still felt there was a budding film making industry just lying in wait.

Then YouTube was bought out by Google and everything changed. Suddenly the need to get millions of hits in order to attract ad dollars meant that the need to make quality videos that required true creativity was replaced by quick videos to cash in. Sure some decent productions managed to slip through the cracks, but even those had to rely on a gimmick. Shows like Angry Video Game Nerd, Pat the NES Punk and Nostalgia Critic, among dozens of others, quickly resonated with audiences.

Partly cashing in on nostalgia and partly adapting to the changing audience, review shows quickly became the prominent format for the quality film makers to get their product out there. Some, such as the aforementioned Angry Video Game Nerd, would slip in their more creative short films onto their channels as specials or filler to tide their audiences over while they worked on other projects. Others, like Pat the NES Punk embraced the narrative format from the beginning finding creative ways to mask his reviews as miniature episodes of an extended parody show that focused on a character that was obsessed with Nintendo games. Before too long the AVGN videos would also weave narratives and production values into his videos with story lines that spanned entire seasons at times. This continued into the Board James series, a show that reviewed old board games.

In the years following review shows have become a powerful force vying for the attention of the fickle YouTube audience. New short forms of videos have sprung up such as vlogs, unboxing videos and long form videos exist in the form of Let’s Play’s. The haven for budding film students to showcase their creative works was quickly supplanted by culture of becoming the next big viral video.

This presents a problem for the budding filmmakers. Some of these review shows formed out of the need for the film makers to hone their craft of writing narrative videos and editing them into coherent stories while masking them as review shows in order to find an audience. Some of the creators, such as James Rolfe himself, have stated their original desires were to be actual filmmakers and they originally used YouTube as a means to showcase their works. Many of them even uploaded videos outside of YouTube before they realized it was the platform of choice. But has doing so stifled their creativity shoehorning them into roles they might otherwise have been able to break out of had they not fallen into the trap?

The complexities of YouTube’s ever changing advertising policies means that content creators who are in it for the money have to constantly be adapting to what the advertising giant requires. Google makes all of their money off ads and in recent months they have come under fire from advertisers to take a stronger stance on content. This, in turn, has forced the content creators to again adapt their videos to the changing landscape. Many of the review shows do have hints of great, very creative TV shows hidden within them. The trouble is how does a creator, such as Rolfe or his contemporaries, break the mold and release content that doesn’t rely on them simultaneously reviewing a product most don’t even remember that fondly? Even when you look at the AVGN videos, the best videos are the ones where the review takes a back seat to a more compelling narrative story. Perhaps the only way to make great quality videos on YouTube is to build an audience doing review shows before slowing moving onto other types of content?

YouTube Review: Techmoan

Techmoan is a Youtube channel run by a British man who only goes by the name Mat. The show mainly focuses on reviewing old audio/video equipment and HiFi stereo components, usually from the 1970 and on. In the videos the host demonstrates the different pieces of technology. He then discusses how he acquired the individual item before taking it apart and showing off the individual components. Sometimes the videos lack the break down and instead focus on showcasing the different technologies. For example he has demonstrated videos that show the differences between content contained on pre-recorded cassettes, both in the audio cassette format as well as VHS. Sometimes he picks a single component or device and reviews it.

The series quality ranges from episodes that look like they could have been aired on public access TV to those that have a professional vibe similar to what would have been shown on a Discovery Channel or TechTV sort of program. The topics are usually well researched with the host providing a bit of background information on the item or items he is reviewing. Since he only reviews machines from his personal collection he often reminds his viewers he needs help in seeking out the items he wishes to review. In this aspect he can come off as asking for donations from time to time. It’s not entirely a bad thing, a lot of channels on YouTube do take user donations. The turn off is how he sometimes makes it sound like it is the responsibility of his viewers to help him acquire the devices he intends to review. If it were a commercial run Television production he would probably have sponsors help pay for these portions. However, since the show is focuses mostly on reviewing older and out dated technology, it’s unlikely the tech companies would consider his reviews valuable marketing for their current business products.

The reviewer has a very relaxing tone to his voice. He conducts his reviews in a very matter-of-fact method. This is one of his strengths as it allows him to shy away from over the top antics as some review shows on YouTube rely too heavily on. The reviews range in length depending on the topic. Generally speaking the videos tend to be thorough with plenty of background information in addition to the technological info that tech fans would enjoy. The videos are more informative than entertaining, however. This isn’t a bad thing it just might limit the audience to those who prefer videos that are more straight forward.

The show channel does offer a decent glimpse into the history of audio/video technologies. There is one slight draw back to the series. As the reviewer is based in the United Kingdom, his videos tend to have a very British slant. This can be interesting when discussing technology that was more popular in the U.K than in the United States, for instance. However it can be limiting when it comes to reviewing products that either had more success in the US or didn’t exist in the U.K. at all. For example he reviewed CED Discs which were a lot more popular in the United States so his exposure was limited. Also since his reviews typically cover PAL products he tends to have an emphasis on PAL signals which might be confusing to some residents in the US. This isn’t necessarily a negative of the show. After all he does a great job explaining the limitations when they do arrive. Yet it still has the potential to limit the audience or at the very least the enjoyment of those who are not as versed in the U.K. region.

Summary: Techmoan offers reviews of different technologies mostly from audio/video sectors. He often digs into the history of the individual technology he is reviewing while breaking down the items to demonstrate how they function, or how they were intended to in the case of items he was unable to repair. The host has a sort of dry personality that might not appeal to some foreign viewers, especially those in the US that are more used to the flashy reviewers who rely heavily on satire and over the top antics for their shows. As such the audience is limited.

The show has decent production values. It’s well researched with good lighting, editing and transitions. The draw backs include the hosts British sensibilities, his tendency to drone on, as well as having some times limited scope when it comes to items that were more popular in the United States. He does often admit to his shortcomings. The show comes off as more informative than entertaining which might be a turn off to some viewers.

Rating: 3.5 stars.

Youtube Review: Cracked After Hours

Michael Swaim, Soren Bowie, Daniel O’Brien and Katie Willert co-host a comedy variety show on YouTube via the Cracked.Com network.

The show centers on four co-workers sitting around a table, typically in a diner, discussing different aspects of popular culture. The individuals each portray a different character type. Soren is the rugged, handsome leading man type, Daniel is the nerdy, unsure of himself social anxiety OCD type. Micheal plays the cool but clueless character who is often impervious to other people’s feelings with Katie filling out the roster as the chick. She sometimes plays the feminist, others she plays the typical girl in a guy group. Most often she is used as fodder for the table to crack jokes as her expense.

Each character supplies a topic of discussion from one episode to the next, then they either enthusiastically or begrudgingly (depending on the topic) discuss the topic at hand. Some episodes discuss what-if scenarios, while others ponder the real-world ramifications the actions of a certain film would have if the rules of society applied.

Each episode is mostly self-contained. Although references do occur from time to time, they often happen in the form of quick flash backs, typically call backs to a previous joke, such as Katie’s changing hair styles or the waitress reaction to the group’s orders.

The jokes often rely on a combination of the characters reactions to the topic as well as satirical references to the topic. A character might behave with “nerd rage” if the topic disproves a popular myth about a particular pop icon that individual character held dear. An example was in the episode where they try to prove Batman is terrible at his job.

There have been rare occasions where the setting will move outside the diner. Some other locations have been camp sights on the side of the road or when the diner burned down they had to move to a new diner and the characters didn’t even notice for several episodes.

The topics are varied enough to keep the viewer coming back. Some episodes will center on a comic book icon or an animated character, such as the Simpsons. While other episodes will discuss the issues of a certain sitcom, or theme of sitcoms as in the episode that breaks down the fatherless sitcoms of the 1980’s.

The show is written by a team of comedy sketch writers who work for the website, Cracked.com. The characters are also featured in other video content on the show. The main “host” Daniel O’Brian is the head of video on the website, taking on a larger role in other shows the team produces.

The production values are high. The sets look professionally built and well lit. The extras are professional in their takes. The hosts deliver their lines as believable characters in the world they inhabit. The acting is probably the only down fall of the series. The characters are more or less caricatures of the personalities the individuals exhibit elsewhere on the channel. When they do show emotion it is often over the top. While this is clearly done for comedic affect, it can become repetitive at times. The actors have demonstrated in other videos they have a limited range so it’s quite possible the episodes are written to their strengths. All in all it’s a fairly entertaining series with short episodes that often provide a brief distraction from the monotonous while also providing alternative perspectives on popular tropes in Hollywood.

 

Summary: The series combines aspects of Seinfeld with a group of friends sitting around a diner talking about random topics. The comedy relies heavily on the way the characters react to what is being said rather than the delivery of the jokes. The series is well written and professionally produced. The show should appeal to those who are fans of films and television that want to get a nice break from the norm with a entertaining and often humorous look at  films and TV shows.

The over acting can be a distraction at times depending on the episode. The series can also rely on slapstick comedy which is hard to pull off when the characters are confined to their seats. These are minimal nitpicks rather than true flaws, however they could be potential negatives to some individuals. The comedy is typically good while the shows topics are usually varied enough to remain mostly fresh.

Rating: 4.5 stars.

 

YouTube Review: FilmmakerIQ

John P. Hess hosts a series of film-school videos that cover a range of topics from the artistic to the technical with histories abounding.

FilmmakerIQ breaks down various aspects of film making and presents them in short lessons for the budding filmmaker, or film enthusiast. The videos often pick a single topic. Sometimes they topics will be technical in nature, such as the history of aspect ratios. Others will be artistic in nature describing a particular technique in detail with illustrations and examples from popular films.

The host of the show presents the topic in a very soothing, professor tone. He uses chalk board animations and sound effects to create the feel of being in a film class with a knowledgeable professor at the helm.

The videos offer great insights into both the history and the practical side of film making. Often times the videos delve into the history of the subject providing examples of the individuals who developed each technique along the way. He even includes examples of famous films from the period to demonstrate whatever principal it is he is discussing.

The production values are quite professional. The videos are well written, well lit and the host often uses props and costumes to accentuate the theme of the video. In terms of quality of content, the videos are not as exhaustive as taking an actual film course or a full-fledged documentary. However they are indeed quite informative. The average video length is over twenty minutes, plenty of time to dig into the history of the topic with solid examples to truly illustrate what is being discussed.

The channel also has a full-fledged website, www.filmmakeriq.com where they offer film courses, critiques, and plenty of advice for budding filmmakers.

Summary: FilmmakerIQ provides easy to digest lessons, tips, and historical perspectives on the aspiring filmmaker or film enthusiast. The host has a clear passion for the content using props, costumes, animations and other effects to provide engaging videos that are both entertaining and informative on the subject. Some videos go into details on the scientific and technical explanations while others take a look at artistic theory and all videos demonstrate knowledge of the subject with clear examples.

 

Rating: 5 stars.

When is a YouTube show just an advertisement?

If you type in “youtube reviews” into Google search chances are you won’t find many blogs, websites, journals, or articles actually reviewing YouTube content, creators, or the like. Instead what you typically find is either a score of YouTube videos of products being reviewed by someone, usually a vlogger, or you find articles by companies trying to lure you into reviewing their products, for money, on YouTube.

How, then, does the person watching a YouTube video really know when they are getting a conversational piece with someone they admire informing them of a product or service, instead of listening to a paid advertorial?

All forms of media, ranging from television, radio, print, websites, etc., rely heavily on advertisers in order to operate as a business. A YouTuber is no different. They are running a business and they rely heavily on advertisements to help pay for the content they produce. In journalism, there is a wall of separation between the editorial side, or the news, and the advertising side, or the business. This is more noticeable in newspapers than any other form of news media. Television often blurs the lines. For example, in a broadcast news segment you will have different reports that start with something along the lines of “the following segment is brought to you by…” and they run an advertisement of the sponsor for that segment.

Typically the sponsor is only paying for the time slot, not the actual content. Meaning if they want to sponsor the sports section they just get to ensure their ad runs during the sports coverage, they have no say in the way the journalist covers the team. Suppose the company that makes the team jerseys for a local team decides to run an ad during the Friday night football recap. They don’t make the jerseys for the team that beat the team they make clothes for. It would be unethical, possibly illegal, for them to tell the reporter not to mention the team that lost in a negative light. The reporter should be free to just tell the story he or she observed.

Things get stickier when you get into web content. Often you will run into what are called Advertorials, essentially the equivalent of those “Paid Content” spots you see on TV where it’s basically an infomercial. Advertorials are pretty much the same thing. Now as a business if a blog or website needs the money there should be nothing wrong with charging a sponsor for a full article no different than if an advertisers wanted to run a notice in the classifieds of the local newspaper. The key is sponsored content always needs to be labeled as such.

If you are watching a review video of a product, let’s say a cosmetic product. If the reviewer is being paid by the cosmetics company for their opinions or views, they need to disclose this. The reason is they are going to be more optimistic about the product, and thus less likely to talk about any negative aspects. Even downplaying a negative trait could be as bad as flat denying it if the person watching the video isn’t able to distinguish the person distributing the content is biased or not.

Unlike opinion bias in news media, which is frowned upon, but not illegal nor unethical, when opinion is masked by paid content there is a problem. The car dealer can run an advertisement on the local TV news cast telling you all the great deals they have at their lot. The news reporter who investigates accusations of fraud should be free to report their findings on said car dealer without facing repercussion. You can trust the journalist was just reporting the facts, were as if the car dealer paid for an advertisement that looked like a news segment complete with their own reporter, that would be dishonest and misleading.

When you are watching YouTube reviewers make sure you check their other videos. First, there should be some disclaimer up front that the video is sponsored. Then you need to be sure to watch other videos by the reviewer to determine their style, preferences, and tastes to see if they align with yours. If their tastes are similar but their values are not, you might want to consider if you want to support this persons content. If you follow a regular reviewer who constantly trashes the products of one company, but praises the products of another, then all of a sudden the company the bash pays them to write a positive review of a new product, you need to be aware of that so you can determine of the reviewer can be trusted.

Be on the look out for these things when you subscribe to reviewers on YouTube and make sure to engage with your favorite YouTubers on social network. If they disable comments, do not publish their Twitter, Instagram or Facebook accounts, chances are they have something to hide. Even Hollywood celebrities go out of their way to make their profiles public so they can interact with their audiences. If the YouTuber you watch is not doing so, and their content appears to be sponsored, you might re-consider whether or not you can trust this person. Remember when you watch a video, ads or not, they get paid for that video so you want to make sure  you are not funneling money into dishonest YouTubers when you would prefer your money to go to those whom you can trust and admire.

Site Update: Videos

I had to delete a couple of videos from the YouTube channel today. I am working on taking the site in a new direction and the two videos did not fit the tone I want the site to go in.

Also, I am stuck using my cell phone for now. I promise I DO actually have a good DSLR camera for shooting videos, but the tab broke off my 16GB SD card rendering it useless. I am in the process of trying to get it fixed. I have tried a couple of do-it-yourself fixes with no luck. I have a 32GB SD card but for some reason it refuses to record video for more than just a few seconds at a time. If I can ever get that figured out I should be back in business.

For now I will continue using the cellphone camera. I don’t know how much longer even that will be an option as the cracks in the screen are starting to interfere with the touch capabilities so the phone is on its last legs as well. With all these technical issues I am facing an uphill battle. But don’t fret I will persevere.

YouTube Review: TodayIFoundOut

Simon Whistler hosts a well-written ‘edutainment’ web series called TodayIFoundOut.

The channel uploads a new video daily. The videos are often brief little micro documentaries on a particular topic. They are well-researched by a team of highly educated writers who also operate a website by the same name. Whistler also hosts other web series on YouTube, but this is really all about the TodayIFoundOut series.

Currently having over 1 million subscribers with 157.4 million views, the channel reaches a vast audience hungry for snippets of interesting factoids. The videos are hyper focuses, typically spending a few minutes on a single topic. Topics range from historical tidbits, such as a video explaining the origins and complexities of the Electoral Collage, to just weird little facts about strange observances, such as their video on the origins of the phrase “Pee like a race horse.”

The channel provides a nice little daily dose of trivia for the intellectual or intellectually curious viewer in today’s busy world. While Whistler appears to be the chief host, he isn’t the sole host of videos. Another fellow by the name of Daven Hiskey, who also writes for the website, does make occasional appearances in the videos. However it is Whistler who is billed as the Host and he is the topic of discussion.

Whister himself offers a very soothing voice when doing his videos. The tone is both informative and entertaining, hence the reason they bill their show as edutainment. The writers are all well-education, many having advanced degrees in various fields of study. Whistler himself also hosts other YouTube channels, so he is no stranger to standing in front of a camera and talking to an audience.

The channel’s videos tend to have fairly broad appeal. Viewers of all ages should find the topics discussed interesting. The videos are typically short, which is fairly common of the more popular videos on YouTube. They are produced daily with Whistler standing in front of a green screen with animations, file photos and other videos playing in the background to accent the topics. Anyone looking for a channel to subscribe to that offers a quick little relaxing break from the norms should check out TodayIFoundOut on YouTube.

The videos tend to have fairly high quality production values. They are well-written, well lit, and employ the use of advanced editing techniques including animated lower thirds. The videos could easily be strung together into a 30-minute Discovery Channel or PBS style show inter cut with voice overs and transitional segments and the viewer would be none the wiser. The videos are highly informative, fairly entertaining, and extremely creative. The host is pleasing to listen to while not being too distracting. The sound editing is also top notch. The series is well-produced, anyone with access to YouTube should be sure to check out their channel. The motto, Feed Your Brain, is quite fitting.

Summary: This web series is the pinnacle of short-form entertainment. It’s production values could be mistaken for a network TV series. The writing is excellent. With new videos, each in typically short form, usually under 10 minutes, they easily fit the bill of today’s YouTube audience.

Rating: 5 stars

The Spiders Lair Podcast Episode 9

In this episode I talk about my interest in the new IT remake. I share some of my thoughts on remakes and reboots in general. I also talk about Gremlins 3, and briefly mention the passing of legendary comedian Jerry Lewis.

I also have a sponsor for this episode! Check out Sojourn Artworks, a dynamic initiative that strives to bring a revolving and diverse portfolio of unique works to the everyday art aficionado Visit http://sojournartworks.wix.com/sojournart for more information.

The rise of digital content production

The world is in the midst of a digital revolution. For the past twenty years most popular forms of entertainment have been driven to digital distribution. Radio has been replaced by services such as Spotify or Pandora. Talk radio was given way to the Podcast. Newspapers and magazines are being replaced by Blogs. Even television and film has shifted from theatrical and broadcast distribution as the only method of delivery. The medium itself does not really matter. A well-written editorial piece published for a weblog shouldn’t be any different to the readers than if the same article were published in a print magazine. If digital distribution channels have begun to supersede traditional methods, why hasn’t the digital content producer become equal to the content producers who rely on more traditional, restrictive mediums?

There shouldn’t be any difference between a filmmaker, television producer or a YouTube content creator. At the end of the day, the content is all that matters, the distribution method is just that, a way to consume the content. The writer, photographer, and editor who producers a web series uses the same skills as a team of producers working on a television production all doing the same jobs. What YouTube creators specifically do is create digital content that is consumed using the internet. While a lot of content on YouTube could be considered social media to some extent, there is a host of quality content that itself could easily be mistaken for a medium budget television production.

High production values, good writing, quality editing, and compelling stories are all what makes for a good production. The end product could be streamed via YouTube, in the case of something like the Angry Video Game Nerd. However those same videos are also available for purchase on DVD (and Blu Ray in some cases) where they can be viewed on a more traditional screen in a more familiar setting. Sitting down with a DVD set of AVGN DVD’s, a bag of popcorn and your favorite soda should be no different than having the same experience with a run through of Buffy the Vampire Slayer DVD’s. The only difference is in the actual content itself. Even James Rolfe, the “Nerd” himself has stated his goal was to be a filmmaker. In fact he achieved that goal just a few years ago when he released his feature length theatrical debut in the form of “The Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie.” I had the opportunity to interview Rolfe during the production phase a few years ago for my college newspaper. Sadly the story wasn’t deemed “local” enough for the editors and it was canned. The point remains the same. Rolfe did not become a filmmaker the day his movie was released to audiences in limited theatrical runs. He was a filmmaker the first time he edited together a series of shots.

Visit FilmmakerIQ and take a trip back in time to look at the history of cinema. The earliest films were little more than just “animated photographs” in essence. They would become more complex over the years as audiences became more invested in the medium. Then Television, or the small screen, threatened the Hollywood system. Television production had it’s start in a similar way as movies. The earliest movies were just experiments. They didn’t become successful until filmmakers learned to create a narrative. Once they discovered to edit shots together they were able to adapt whole plays into motion pictures. Hence why we call the script of a film the screen play. Television got it’s beginnings in radio. The earliest TV stars were just radio performers standing on a stage doing their acts in front of a camera. Not much different than the earliest Angry Nerd videos, or even much of the content that is produced on YouTube these days if you get down to it.

Whether a content creator releases their product via television to audiences over FCC regulated airwaves, projected onto a silver screen in a large auditorium, or streamed over WiFi networks via YouTube, the point is the content is all that matters. Digital content producers deserve the same respect as filmmakers and television producers. In fact many deserve greater respect as they are often one-person shows. When a quality, professionally produced product can be written, shot, edited and dubbed by a single person, or a team of two in some cases, that’s even more impressive than a shoddy production using the best equipment and a team of professionally trained writers, editors, directors and photographers.