Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
💰 GrifterCallum Nathan Thomas Edmunds / MauLer93 / MauLer and the EFAPshere - Objective discussion about not-Channel Awesome featuring Rags, Southpaw and more!
Iniciador del temaLN 910
Fecha de inicio
🔧 Site instability resolved. You can report double-posts and broken attachments. For bigger issues, use the Technical Grievances thread.
🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading. Create account
Mauler recently released a Super Chat catch up for episode 355. Just for context that episode came out 7 months ago.
The catch up is just an hour long, considering how long these guys usually go they could've done more.
I just can't imagine donating to this shit. Imaigne you donate only to have it read over half a year later with no context!I guess I can't really bang on the buisness model too much though cause it somehow works.
Bonus: I found a comment calling out Mauler on a dobule standard, if this is true it's not really surprising he has a lot of double standards when it comes ot people he associates with. Makes it funnier his drama rn is bullying Gramuglia for sticking with his mutual despite his bad behaviour.
I decided to give this film my full attention to really judge it. This is kind of a nitpick maybe to start and it's not really about Mauler but the logo for the production company bothered me how do you use the crescent moon as the "c" in crescent but not for the "c" in creative, kinda retarded. Also oddly when I search Crescent Creative Media, it just brings up a number of companies for graphic design and art so not even sure what it is.
He actually used his real name in the credits which is kind of surprising, thought he was too much of a bitch for that.
The movie itself was really bad, I tried to go in with an open mind even though I don't like Mauler but it was really bad. The whole movie takes place in this barn where some crime lord has four people tied to chairs with bags over their heads, he starts with the guy on the right and has his henchman pull the bag off of the guy's head, guy begs for his life, then the crime lord shoots him. Then the same is done for the woman next to him, then he comes to the third person, who spoiler is the main character and the henchman goes to take the bag off the head and the crime lord shakes his head no and directs him to move to the last person who then begs for his life and is subsquentially shot. Then he moves back to the third person in line and has his bag taken off and goes to shoot him but his gun jams. His henchman offers him his own gun and the crime lord scoffs and says something like "I don't want your gun you ape. Go fix it and clean this place up", the main character later asks him why he didn't use the henchman's gun and he says something like "my gun has killed more people than the plague, it's not about to stop now and it was my father's gun" which really doesn't make sense and is a really flimsy plot device for the rest of the short to happen.
Then what follows is the main character and the crime lord having a conversation that really doesn't explain why any of this is happening and it seems at times like the crime lord knows who the main character is but also at times like he doesn't and the dialogue in general just doesn't make any sense, the crime lord goes from telling him he should give him a reason to save him to offering a job and then in what really blows the whole premise the crime lord pulls out a switchblade and holds it to his neck, threatening him, so apparently he didn't need the gun after all I guess???? I'm struggling to explain it because it's really convoluted and I don't want to watch it again.
Then the ending which is probably the most retarded part is the henchman brings him back his gun and the crime lord says he's letting the main character go and the guy gets up and the crime lord asks him "why didn't you flinch when the gun jammed?" and the main character just says "all in good time" which really makes no sense, maybe if he said "you'll find out all in good time" but that's not the title i guess. Then the crime lord shoots him in the back of the head in the most obvious twist ever and the crime lord says "inevitable" which also makes no sense and then in the most contrived part of the film walks over and stands over the dead body and leans over for no reason whatsoever, I guess that's what you do after you shoot someone? And then poisonous gas releases from the dead guy's neck? There's no closeup shot to actually show you what this is, so it just looks like gas came out of his body when he was shot but I guess he had a device on the back of his neck that was set to release poisonous gas when he died? Which only would have worked if the guy was standing over like he did which he had no reason to do? I guess the guy was on a suicide mission to take the crime lord out but you really don't know because there's like zero information given in the dialogue that makes up the majority of the run time.
It was really incomprehensible, it seemed like he thought he'd write it in a way where it doesn't spoon feed you the narrative which is fine in theory but you still have to convey something about the characters and there's just nothing conveyed, you don't really get any idea. It doesn't help they both have pretty heavy accents so maybe that plays a role. The actors were fine, I mean they had very little to work with and overact but they were fine. The dialogue was very overwrought and far too dramatic like the main character at one point says ""you're a fool and it won't be long before you no longer draw breath" and it's just obvious it's trying to be far too dramatic and cool than is necessary. The cinematography is fine I guess but the writing is just pure dog shit.
Oh also at the end as the main character is getting shot a ticking clock sound starts coming and it shows shots of the barn in a way where you think the ticking clock that there's a bomb that is about to explode but then the sound leads to the sound of the poisonous gas canister releasing but then after the crime boss dies the ticking clock comes back and the camera pans to a clock sitting on a stack of pallets with a bunch of wires next to it and then the clock stops ticking so you think "oh so there is a bomb?" but thent the camera just pans out of the barn and then pans over a field and that's the end.
TL;DR It's really bad and doesn't make any sense and if Stuckmann had made it they would shit on it for 10 hours but since Mauler made it I'm sure all of his fans are going to talk about how amazing it is.
I would agree it's narratively confused. I thought the dialogue was rather interesting, but it didn't seem to service the story. It felt more as an exercise in prose than a narrative exercise. Overall, it's cliché as a story but I think it's not too bad for a first writing credit.
I would agree it's narratively confused. I thought the dialogue was rather interesting, but it didn't seem to service the story. It felt more as an exercise in prose than a narrative exercise. Overall, it's cliché as a story but I think it's not too bad for a first writing credit.
I thought the dialogue came off as he had a bunch of lines and quips he thought of and wanted to fit them in, it just doesn't flow at all it feels like a series of lines disconnected from everything. I could forgive that but really I can't forgive is that when you build your entire youtube career on calling out bad writing and talking about how you can write the perfect script you can't make a movie where whatever plot there is it relies on ridiculous contrivances. He really should have walked before he ran.
I went to his sub-reddit and they are surprisingly negative about it. This is one is particularly brutal.
I thought this was interesting, I guess this person went to the actual screening and Q&A, I can't blame the actors I wouldn't have known what to make of it either.
I'll be interested to see how they talk about it, when Drinker released his movie, they just kind of pretended like it was good and only admitted it was bad later on when Drinker asked for more money to make something else. I think Mauler actually said he wouldn't review it because he couldn't look at it objectively since Drinker was his friend or something. At least RLM acknowledged Space Cop was bad and made fun of it themselves.
when you build your entire youtube career on calling out bad writing and talking about how you can write the perfect script you can't make a movie where whatever plot there is it relies on ridiculous contrivances
During the EFAP episode on Shelby Oaks, the hosts alluded that writing and critique are not really different skillsets and that it should be transferable. But ultimately, I don't think he has much writing credit or experience so I think I am more lenient on that side since he's a newcomer. But his lack of perspective about writing vs critiquing is really grating. One writing of his I did like was his re-draft of the TFA scene where Poe confronts the first order, it played with the characters well and felt rather natural.
The critiques about the audio and some of the directing I agree, but that's not the fault of the screenwriter. Mauler was still absent from the shooting though. It would have benefited from having the screenwriter on set to give pointers on the characters and dialogue. I'm not sure if it's a weird autism thing why he wasn't present, given that he's credited under his real name anyway.
Do you have a quote on that? Because that's a total 180 on what he said during his Shelby Oaks coverage where he said friends should be honest with each other (in the context of critiquing each others' works) and true friendship is being able to step on each other's toes without fearing undue repercussions.
But ultimately, I don't think he has much writing credit or experience so I think I am more lenient on that side since he's a newcomer. But his lack of perspective about writing vs critiquing is really grating
Mauler was still absent from the shooting though. It would have benefited from having the screenwriter on set to give pointers on the characters and dialogue. I'm not sure if it's a weird autism thing why he wasn't present, given that he's credited under his real name anyway.
Yeah it probably would have benefited from it, whatever idea he was trying to get across could have been given to the actors and it is really weird why he didn't go, I mean I'm assuming he is a big fan of the two actors at least Flemyng who is fairly famous and would want to meet him and then I mean also you'd think you'd want to go just for the experience and to see how it's made. And his dox is already out there anyway.
Do you have a quote on that? Because that's a total 180 on what he said during his Shelby Oaks coverage where he said friends should be honest with each other (in the context of critiquing each others' works) and true friendship is being able to step on each other's toes without fearing undue repercussions.
https://youtu.be/mFHenoozlIs?t=116 The first 50 seconds are some random Stuckmann shit for some reason but then drinker talks about his movie and at around 1:56 Mauler says that he can't review his own stuff, nor his friends' or fans' because he doesn't want to hurt feelings.
As a fan of Mauler, I was prepared for the movie to be dogshit to decent, didn't expect any better than that. I don't see Mauler as a fiction writer. He's never expressed passion for it vs analyzing other shit. He already released a comic with Fringy, and you'd barely know it or this was a thing from his streams. And I don't get any passion from this film. It's awful minimalist. You can't blame him, like most creatives, for being overly ambitious too early on. In a classic EFAP episode now, he admitted that he would call a chair in a room a 10/10 story, but that "I'd suggest you spice it up a little." So you could see this short as him trying to start from a solid foundation and carefully add ideas from there, rather than having an idea and then trying to make it work. You can imagine the meta weighing on him, so he first and foremost wants to make a film that holds up to the type of scrutiny he's known for.
The pros: I liked the little soundtrack we got. Nice mysterious brass ambiance you could hear in James Bond or Mission Impossible. Harmonically interesting.
The Bane-esque introduction of the "hero." 4 guys in bags, one of them immediately has more aura when they pass over him for some unknown reason. He stands out against the others begging for their lives by not flinching, but staring with intent.
The villain's little anecdote about his rottweiler was appropriate for the situation, it established a core value which directly informs his actions now. Contrasts his mercilessness with an instance of mercy, when it suits him.
Cons: Each hostage waits for their bag to be removed before pleading for their lives in their own way. I don't buy it. They shouldn't be taking turns, but all pleading or atleast reacting in some way from the start. It comes off like stage play performance, in its clear cut procession of monologues, but doesn't fit the verisimilitude of the thriller.
The gun jamming and the villain not wanting to use anything else because of some weird affinity for it is such a dumb setup I'm still not sure if it was supposed to be a ruse. I can't tell if him asking the hero "why didn't you flinch" was meant to mean "did you know it would conveniently jam?" Or "did you expect to die to take me out?" And his response "all in good time" would mean "I knew you would offer me to work for you, and wouldn't kill me until I refused" or "whenever I die, it's good because I plan to take you out with me." Either way, not very interesting.
The hero is brazen for a good while, but for some reason starts to get scared when the villain begins telling of his rottweiler. Nothing about the story is that scary, especially from the first words, but you just imagine he's thinking "oh no, he's about to tell me his cliche fucked up backstory. He probably killed the dog." It's not even fucked up. And even if it was, he just killed people right next to you. I guess they wanted the power dynamics to shift throughout the conversation, but it doesn't work.
Why does this guy care so much about killing the son of a crime boss he once knew? Just general do-gooding? I just can't be bothered.
I don't really care about this film at all. For a first attempt, it's fine.
It oddly reminds me alot of Nefarious, (down to the interrogated man playing in Young Indiana Jones) which I'd be surprised if Mauler watched since half that movie is Christian apologia.
They say a human can actively pay attention for 7 minutes, I think this short film prove dit right with me cause at exactly 7 minutes I eventually clicked back after I realized I had the film paused for a while and started doing something else more interesting.
It's a crying shame cause I really like Jason Flemyng and I can tell he's trying but there's a clear lack of direction radiating from the whole thing. It's incredibly vague, the motivations feel very loose and undefined and the cringe dialogue doesen't help.
I was incredibly confused by the set up - So this Crime Lord guy jsut executes random fucking people withotu knowing who they are? What?
And he has a special gun he does it with which can completely block up, you'd think he'd use something reliable for executions since he aparrently did so many of them.
Also the whole thing is so contrived. He randomly skips Jaosn Flemyng, you'd think this would be to maybe talk to him sicne they have history or something. But no he jsut goes to shoot him immidietly after the third guy. Then what was the point in skipping him? If you didn't do that he'd be dead right now.
I also don't know why he skipped him since the dialogue clearly indicates he has no idea whot he fuck this guy is.
The fact this gun that killed more people then the plague happens to jam up in that specific moment is also quite funny and conveniant. This whole thing could be resolved if the crime lord knew who Jason Flemyng was and skipped him to have a last covnersation with him, cut out the bit about the gun jamming he just wants to talk and then do the movie you wanted to do. It's such a simple solution and it clears up basically all the issues nicely.
This isn't horrible or anything, it's well shot and it has a lot of issues in its set up. I'd say solid effort for a starting film maker but Mauler and co viscously tore apart Chris Stuckman who was also a first timer. And the line of logic was, you'd think he'd be able to make something better after so much years in media criticism.
By that logic Mauler probably should've done a lot better too.
What was the comic called that was made by Mauler and Fringy? I keep seeing people on here talking about it and I know Mauler mentioned it a few efaps ago but no one mentioned a title.
What was the comic called that was made by Mauler and Fringy? I keep seeing people on here talking about it and I know Mauler mentioned it a few efaps ago but no one mentioned a title.
What was the comic called that was made by Mauler and Fringy? I keep seeing people on here talking about it and I know Mauler mentioned it a few efaps ago but no one mentioned a title.
Oh shit, looks like it was taken off yt. Pretty sure it was on Fringy's channel but now doesn't come up on search. Wonder why. I have no memory of its quality.
Oh shit, looks like it was taken off yt. Pretty sure it was on Fringy's channel but now doesn't come up on search. Wonder why. I have no memory of its quality.
That was years ago. Mauler talked about writing a comic recently a few efaps ago. The Green Teal comic was only written and drawn by Fringy. As far as I know Mauler had nothing to do with it.
That was years ago. Mauler talked about writing a comic recently a few efaps ago. The Green Teal comic was only written and drawn by Fringy. As far as I know Mauler had nothing to do with it.
I was interested in Mauler checking out the older Resident Evil games because I really enjoyed the originals, the first few streams were okay but I hate that he's now using it as another excuse to just get drunk on stream.
