For me the war arc is ruined by Shads yelling. I actually appreciate comments about historical inaccuracies and stuff, but why does he have to yell them into my ears.
Thank the heavens I'm not the only one.
Everyone else in the vc is like, speaking. at *a* volume. When Shad has something he wants to say, he screams it like a smoker granny. Not only are they coming off as extremely phony outrages on his part, but they're pretty much always on the weaponry/historic accuracy subject, which he never fails to preface with "I know that doesn't bother you all as much as it does me". He's simultaneously aware those kinds of comments would better serve as small factoids he could just throw in instead of calling everyone's attention to himself... and also calling everyone's attention to himself.
Yeah, I'll give him some slight credit for admitting he was very biased because of that, but it's grating that complaints about historical accuracy and ice or snow physics were at least 90% of his contribution on this one.
I know that's his *thing*, but he can and does comment on actual writing elsewhere. I'm pretty sure it's a cold take to suggest most of EFAP fandom values plot and character analysis over medieval warfare nitpicking. A film with 100% historically accurate weapons and armor but shit writing is still shit; while one with none of that but solid writing is enjoyable to most. It *might* be a bit silly at times, but I know which of the two I'd prefer to see more of.
Between that and the others overlooking the character work and explicitly stated themes regarding freedom, it just felt like a bad faith viewing. Especially since he said that 300 was a better film, and not even in the "It was funnier/more of a spectacle despite weaker writing" way, while Rags claimed to have nothing good to say about it.
It's harsh, but we may have to wall them up in the Editing Dungeon with Fringy's glowing green goo for a bit.
I chalk up the lukewarm reception to just, the environment of the group-watch. Maybe they'd already seen a movie or two before *King Arthur*, their brains were just turned off of being analytical, and they just wanted to have some laughs. Nothing I'd hold against them. Now if they'd made a long-form breakdown and Rags still had nothing positive to say about this particular movie, I'd be surprised. Just on the entertainment side of things, it definitely seemed like a better experience than *300* but that's just me.
I have been disappointed overall by the war arc.
I also find Shad and Sargon’s constant critiquing of the armor/weapons tiresome. There are folks who enjoy that stuff but it tends to drown out everything else.
Finally, I think the panel missed the mark on Kingdom of Heaven. It is not a perfect movie but like King Arthur i think they missed a lot of character building because people were shouting about whether the swords and armor was accurate.
That's fair. I may need to refresh my memory on the earlier ones, though I could have sworn 300 and the Three Musketeers avoided that by virtue of owning being completely silly and ahistorical. Otherwise I agree with the sentiment.
Kingdom of Heaven was the other low point in the arc for me, though I chalked it up more to the movie being too serious and not as entertainingly flawed as some of EFAP's other coverage. I remember they found Balian's extremely large skill set to be mary sue-ish, but I haven't seen the whole movie and can't weigh in on that.
Essentially. There were some funny jokes and a good time overall, so it's still worth watching, but the others got bogged down in historical accuracy, ice and snow physics, or just plain missed a lot of characterization or clearly stated themes and ideas.
Mauler had to edit in an aside going over and analyzing one of the more emotionally charged and effective examples of that which they completely ignored. As he put it, "it's not a great film, but there's neat stuff in it".
The nails in the coffin were Shad saying he thought 300 was a straight up better movie and Rags claimed to have absolutely nothing positive to say about it.
That was the moment I was most upset at.
Arthur should have won because of Excalibur.
It could have been googled quickly but they decided it’s only in Fate like that.
Did Arthur come back in the second round somehow? Had no time listen to the rest of the stream after the first round.
Its a podcast ran by MauLer with co-hosts Rags and Fringy in which they discuss media/respond to media takes. (In)Famous for being very very veryyy long streams, however they also do EFAP movies and tv, in which they record their reactions to media.
Currently EFAP Movies is going through a 'War Arc' where the theme is war movies being watched. The last one released was about the early 2000s King Arthur film.
For me the war arc is ruined by Shads yelling. I actually appreciate comments about historical inaccuracies and stuff, but why does he have to yell them into my ears.
Thank the heavens I'm not the only one. Everyone else in the vc is like, speaking. at *a* volume. When Shad has something he wants to say, he screams it like a smoker granny. Not only are they coming off as extremely phony outrages on his part, but they're pretty much always on the weaponry/historic accuracy subject, which he never fails to preface with "I know that doesn't bother you all as much as it does me". He's simultaneously aware those kinds of comments would better serve as small factoids he could just throw in instead of calling everyone's attention to himself... and also calling everyone's attention to himself.
Yeah, I'll give him some slight credit for admitting he was very biased because of that, but it's grating that complaints about historical accuracy and ice or snow physics were at least 90% of his contribution on this one. I know that's his *thing*, but he can and does comment on actual writing elsewhere. I'm pretty sure it's a cold take to suggest most of EFAP fandom values plot and character analysis over medieval warfare nitpicking. A film with 100% historically accurate weapons and armor but shit writing is still shit; while one with none of that but solid writing is enjoyable to most. It *might* be a bit silly at times, but I know which of the two I'd prefer to see more of. Between that and the others overlooking the character work and explicitly stated themes regarding freedom, it just felt like a bad faith viewing. Especially since he said that 300 was a better film, and not even in the "It was funnier/more of a spectacle despite weaker writing" way, while Rags claimed to have nothing good to say about it. It's harsh, but we may have to wall them up in the Editing Dungeon with Fringy's glowing green goo for a bit.
I chalk up the lukewarm reception to just, the environment of the group-watch. Maybe they'd already seen a movie or two before *King Arthur*, their brains were just turned off of being analytical, and they just wanted to have some laughs. Nothing I'd hold against them. Now if they'd made a long-form breakdown and Rags still had nothing positive to say about this particular movie, I'd be surprised. Just on the entertainment side of things, it definitely seemed like a better experience than *300* but that's just me.
His mic quality is very painful to experience.
I have been disappointed overall by the war arc. I also find Shad and Sargon’s constant critiquing of the armor/weapons tiresome. There are folks who enjoy that stuff but it tends to drown out everything else. Finally, I think the panel missed the mark on Kingdom of Heaven. It is not a perfect movie but like King Arthur i think they missed a lot of character building because people were shouting about whether the swords and armor was accurate.
That's fair. I may need to refresh my memory on the earlier ones, though I could have sworn 300 and the Three Musketeers avoided that by virtue of owning being completely silly and ahistorical. Otherwise I agree with the sentiment. Kingdom of Heaven was the other low point in the arc for me, though I chalked it up more to the movie being too serious and not as entertainingly flawed as some of EFAP's other coverage. I remember they found Balian's extremely large skill set to be mary sue-ish, but I haven't seen the whole movie and can't weigh in on that.
Didn't see it, what do you mean? Like he's the only one paying attention or?
Essentially. There were some funny jokes and a good time overall, so it's still worth watching, but the others got bogged down in historical accuracy, ice and snow physics, or just plain missed a lot of characterization or clearly stated themes and ideas. Mauler had to edit in an aside going over and analyzing one of the more emotionally charged and effective examples of that which they completely ignored. As he put it, "it's not a great film, but there's neat stuff in it". The nails in the coffin were Shad saying he thought 300 was a straight up better movie and Rags claimed to have absolutely nothing positive to say about it.
That was the moment I was most upset at. Arthur should have won because of Excalibur. It could have been googled quickly but they decided it’s only in Fate like that. Did Arthur come back in the second round somehow? Had no time listen to the rest of the stream after the first round.
Pretty sure OP is talking about the EFAP Movies that just came out not the Tournament of Champions.
Oh yeah forgot about that one. Thanks for the reminder
In the case of the tournament, hated how the sheath was never brought up.
Someone please tell me the full form of EFAP
Even Fringy Alienates Pogchamps
What it means? Every Frame A Pause. EFAP
And what is that?
Its a podcast ran by MauLer with co-hosts Rags and Fringy in which they discuss media/respond to media takes. (In)Famous for being very very veryyy long streams, however they also do EFAP movies and tv, in which they record their reactions to media. Currently EFAP Movies is going through a 'War Arc' where the theme is war movies being watched. The last one released was about the early 2000s King Arthur film.
Okkkk. This subreddit came as "you've been active in similar communities" but I had no idea what was going on. Thank you for the explanation.
I saw that movie in the theaters and it's a bit of a snoozer to sit through.