Monday, August 17, 2015

Alpha and Omega Review

CONTENT WARNING: The following review will be highly critical. If you're a devoted furry or a fanboy, this review will cause you to cry uncontrollably. If that happens, well, what did you expect?

Does anyone remember the 2010 animated feature, Alpha and Omega? No? Well me neither.

2010 seemed to serve as the Y2K of media in general. The TV shows took a massive nose dive in quality, Sonic games took on a comedic tone that sacrificed anything of value, which ultimately led to the very catastrophe that is Sonic Boom, among other things. To put it simply, now everyone had a reason to complain (and review)

I first heard about Alpha and Omega through the trailers, but when they stopped airing them, I immediately forgot about it. It wasn't until I came across it by random when looking up the film's production company, Crest Animation, and its less than positive reception.

The film was released by the king shit-meisters Lionsgate (infamous for releasing direct to DVD catastrophes of all kinds, including a Twilight parody that makes you pine for Seltzerburg's Vampires Suck), and was produced by Richard Rich's Crest Animation, best known for The Swan Princess and, more infamously, The King and I.

The film was directed by both Anthony Bell and Ben Gluck. The former had almost no experience in cinema, having worked on shows like The Wild Thornberries, As Told by Ginger, The Simpsons, Happily Ever After: Tales for Every Child and The Boondocks, all, no doubt, good shows, but not close to actual cinema. As for the latter, prior to directing this movie, he only really directed one movie, Brother Bear 2 (a direct to video movie). I personally hate the Brother Bear movies, but I won't say Ben had any impact on it (blame the writers).

My point? Making two directors who had no major experience in professional cinema work on a feature length movie is bound to backfire. The movie itself was a modest box office success, but critically? Not so. It currently has a 13% on Rotten tomatoes, and believe me, there's a reason for that. Enough beating around the bush, let's get into this.
------------------
So we start off with a panning shot of the mountains, showing off the title, along with the stellar computer animation that wouldn't look out of place in an episode of Sonic Boom. What year was this made in again? 2010? Beautifulllllllll.......

After that, we cut to one of our leads, Kate, training with her sister Lily. Alongside, we see out second lead, Humphrey, screwing around on a bobsled with his fellow omegas. Considering what'll be shown later on, this'll be the most normal thing you'll see in the movie.

Before I continue on with the plot, one thing you'll immediately pick up from the movie is the designs. These wolves don't look anything like wolves, let alone appealing. You know those troll doodles that're meant to make fun of wolves? That's what the wolves in this movie resemble. It feels as if the creators of this movie merely went on FurAffinity and looked for wolf artwork, converted the designs and made the movie on the spot.

Now, I know what you're thinking "BWWWWAAAAAWWHHHH! REM DER ANTHROMORPIK! ETZ TEH ARTYSTZ INTENTYION!". Well, look at it this way. While in, well, every cartoon and movie ever (with anthropomorphic characters), animals are portrayed in situations outside of their own normal environment. In Alpha and Omega, they're portrayed in their natural habitat and they still act like wolves. Hell, they even walk on all fours, something that good anthropomorphic characters don't do. The way they're made makes them look completely out of place, and considering what they're going for, it's just pathetic.

Back to the movie, Kate and Humphrey come across one another after Humphrey crashes, and from there, a connection is formed. Damn, even in the animated Titanic movies (the first two at least), the main leads had at least one line of dialogue before they knew it was meant to be. Kate walks off and Humphrey attempts to follow Kate, but is stopped by his pack leader Winston, played by Danny Glover. Oh how the mighty have fallen. I guess if your last name is Glover, you're doomed to appear in any bad modern movie. Just look at Crispin Glover.

Winston tells Humphrey that he can't be with Kate due to her being an alpha and Humphrey being an omega. Sigh... two things!

1. I'm not a complete expert on wolves in general, but alphas and omega aren't necessarily separate packs, they're part of a hierarchy.

2. The reason they classify alphas and omegas as such is to, you probably figured it out already, base it on Romeo and Juliet. Think about it, two people loving one another, them not being able to be with one another due to the packs they're part of, the title. This is about as original as Gnomeo and Juliet.

Anyhow, we skip past a few years and we see Kate going on her first hunt. Her fellow alphas trigger a stampede, which they get stuck in, and Kate goes to save them Oh gee, I wonder if they're going to go beyond the traits of that of a normal wolf for no good reason. I wonder, I wonder, I wonder, I won- let's just show it. Through some parkour moves, which normal wolves couldn't possibly pull off, she saves the alphas. About as awesome as Sunny D.

Later on, we see Winston speaking with the alpha pack leader, Tony, played by Dennis Hopper in his final role, and to think that prior to this, he only had the Super Mario Bros. movie tarnishing his resume. They're talking about how the valley they're in is going through a massive famine. Tony threatens Winston to unite their packs (which wouldn't be the issue if the writers did proper research on wolves in general), or he'll likely slaughter the omega pack. Tony claims that the one way to unite the packs is by having Kate marry his son Garth.

Question, aren't both Kate and Garth alphas? How would having them marry one another make a difference, when the better measure would be to have an alpha marry ann omega (in that case, Humphrey)? Oh right, then the movie wouldn't have any purpose, and we further need to drive the point that Kate and Humphrey should be together.

Moving on, we see the wolves engaged in a moonlight how, which of course translates to OOC wolves dancing and singing like Christina Aguilera. Garth meets Kate, and Humphrey, not satisfied, drops down and makes an ass of himself. I'd like to bring up that Garth has yet to instigate Humphrey and Kate in any way. This isn't Beauty and the Beast where the main female is antagonized by a pig of a man. Oh how I miss Gaston.

Kate ditches Humphrey and goes to the peak with Garth, where he engages in a how. But, it doesn't go so well, with Garth making a less than stellar howl, causing Kate to bail. Let me get this straight, you'd rather watch as your tribe slaughters another, and likely die, all because a wolf's howl wasn't satisfactory? How shallow.

Kate rejoins Humphr- oh I'm sorry, he appears again to denounce Garth some more. I've seen people in Joe the King who were more considerate than Humphrey. Soon enough, both wolves are shot with tranquilizer darts, which leads to a scene that is certainly no Madagascar. The two are then taken away by a group of rangers. Their respective packs hear about this, and the alphas warn the omegas are then warned by the alphas that Kate must return by the next full moon, which shouldn't be an issue, since the next full moon is within about three- oh wait, the creators don't know jack shit about logic. The two wake up in a new valley, where they are greeted by two ducks, Paddy and Marcel. After a pointless chase scene, which proudly displays the creator's ignorance of physics, Kate and Humphrey learn that they were taken to help repopulate.

Ok, points for not using the humans are evil cliche, but you're still in negative numbers. The two attempt to make it back to their home valley, and they do so by hitching a ride on the back of a truck that belongs to a couple consisting of a biker and a librarian. Still makes more sense than Sean Penn and Madonna, I guess. In all seriousness, the odd coupling mentioned indirectly references how Kate and Humphrey are meant to be, differences aside. Not unlike, oh I don't know, every romantic movie ever!

Now, before I forget about it, as Kate and Humphrey try to make it back, we're treated to some bonding scenes between Lily and Garth. As opposed to the cliched and forced pairing between Kate and Humphrey, this romance plays out naturally. If they were the main focus, then I'd have no purpose criticizing this movie. But alas, the cliched coupling is what we're supposed to focus on here.

Following some more cliches, consisting of Kate helping Humphrey in certain situations, including one where Humphrey messes with a bear cub before getting confronter by its mother and other schlock, we get to- ah fuck it, I wanna see Lily and Garth again. Lily helps Garth to conquer his inability to howl properly, which they do. We return to Humphrey who howls also, which is enough to seal the deal with Kate. Hey, remember when connections could be formed without stooping to menial stuff and cliches? Can we go back to that, please?

The two eventually make it back, but not before getting confronted by Tony, because hey, we have a, quite frankly, needless marriage to get through. Kate agrees to it, and everything ends happily. Cut to the next morning, Humphrey claims that he's going to leave the valley to see the world, heh, good riddance, and Kate soon joins Garth. Unfortunately, before the two could get together, putting this movie to an end, Kate claims that she doesn't really love him. Thus causing the, quite frankly, schizophrenic packs to fight one another.

The fighting causes a stampede to happen. But wait a minute, there's a famine going on, how could there be a stampede if there're no animals, let alone enough of them to engage in one? Winston and Tony get trapped in it, and Humphrey, somehow making it back in time, helps as Kate goes to retrieve Winston and Tony. She does, but she ultimately gets trampled, even as Humphrey tries to save her.

And of course she survives, what did you expect? To the people who worked on this movie, logic is just an option. After all that has happened, Kate and Humphrey are allowed to be together, same with Lily and Garth, and they engage in another moonlight howl, where Kate and Humphrey howl together, thus putting an end to this movie.
--------
And that was Alpha and Omega, a true testament to how much originally has depleted. The framework of this movie is similar to past films, which have done a much better job at being different, the film ignores logic, it has no proper baring on wolves in general, and it's just a forgettable movie overall. The fact that this movie has earned a total of four sequels (each of them, thankfully, only being straight to DVD) makes me weep for movie viewers these days, especially considering the fanbase (one of which, being a documented lolcow) who supports it.

So in conclusion, you're better off sticking with romances that don't suck, nor appeal to only children and furries. I'm REM, and until we meet again, good day.

Ratings

Animation: 3.5/10
Story: 3/10
Acting: 4.5/10

Final Rating: 10/30

26 comments:

  1. Wow. You call this a review?
    This is the most childish review I've ever seen.

    Especially this:
    "Now, I know what you're thinking "BWWWWAAAAAWWHHHH! REM DER ANTHROMORPIK! ETZ TEH ARTYSTZ INTENTYION!""
    You don't even know the fact that you are allowed to have a little realism but not all the way. Clearly if it was true that they would try to portray wolves as realism only, then they wouldn't do any form of anthropomorphic thing.

    Clearly you have no taste into creative aestheticism, no taste into value, can't seem to see them in other people, and has no respect toward any actual creativity all because this isn't your type of thing.
    And yes man, the designs do count as value, it offers a lot of enjoyment to some fans, and yes Remreviews, it counts. The movie is very memorable because of the designs.
    The reason why they purposely had different designs was so they could avoid 'the same' problem involving the wolves; if they all looked real, then they would have NO personality on the outside, and they will look all the same. Not only that but since you want them to act like wolves I believe, you are also suggesting to have ZERO % personality.

    You are like one hell of a rabid hater. A horrible rabid person who clearly sounds so selfish for the religion of realism.
    Your suggestions to so called "better" sounds like the complete opposite. It sounds like you are suggesting to make this movie a highly generic realism movie inspired by RL home videos of animals who can talk.
    And no, I didn't bother reading the full review, because I just can't get past the childish immaturity found in here.



    What are you going to do? Delete this comment? If you do, I will laugh even harder.

    P.S.
    Aren't you that REM guy on Deviantart?
    Oh jesus, aren't you the same guy who only spreads hatred on something you seem obsessed about because of some guy?
    Just stop wasting your time with this movie and move on. I mean you made a really bad childish biases review just because you hate it when someone defends and make a good point in respect to creative intentions.
    This is very sad.

    Just go back to your shitty photography art crap.

    Oh, you know? I should make a review on that.

    I may also be a furry, but that doesn't mean I can't have my say in reaction to this butthurt review involving creative aesthetic art.

    P.SS. You have a stupid Knuckles icon. That looks NOTHING like a real life hedgehog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personality insulting.
      How matured.

      Delete
    2. Shut the fuck up wwwarea. :) Nobody gives a shit about your whining. :)

      Delete
    3. Shut the fuck up wwwarea. :) Nobody gives a shit about your whining. :)

      Delete
  2. Hi wwwarea.

    "Wow. You call this a review?
    This is the most childish review I've ever seen."

    Childish: Not having the same opinion as another person, apparently.

    "You don't even know the fact that you are allowed to have a little realism but not all the way. Clearly if it was true that they would try to portray wolves as realism only, then they wouldn't do any form of anthropomorphic thing."

    It wouldn't be the case, if the creators knew how to do it properly. They could've just followed in the footsteps of Balto and made an interesting and memorable story, rather than another forgettable humor driven generic story that has been beaten to death.

    "Clearly you have no taste into creative aestheticism, no taste into value, can't seem to see them in other people, and has no respect toward any actual creativity all because this isn't your type of thing."

    All because I don't like a movie you obsess over? Wow.

    "And yes man, the designs do count as value, it offers a lot of enjoyment to some fans, and yes Remreviews, it counts. The movie is very memorable because of the designs."

    Yeah, enjoyment to the furry community (because the designs resemble wolves drawn on FurAffinity). It was only memorable to the fanbase and the furries. Everyone outside of both communities pretty much forgot about the movie after came out.

    "The reason why they purposely had different designs was so they could avoid 'the same' problem involving the wolves; if they all looked real, then they would have NO personality on the outside, and they will look all the same. Not only that but since you want them to act like wolves I believe, you are also suggesting to have ZERO % personality."

    It wouldn't be an issue if the writers had some creativity. It sounds like you don't care about legitimate quality.

    "You are like one hell of a rabid hater. A horrible rabid person who clearly sounds so selfish for the religion of realism."

    All because I dared to criticize an otherwise mediocre movie? How dare I?

    "Your suggestions to so called "better" sounds like the complete opposite. It sounds like you are suggesting to make this movie a highly generic realism movie inspired by RL home videos of animals who can talk."

    So creativity will harm the movie?

    "And no, I didn't bother reading the full review, because I just can't get past the childish immaturity found in here."

    How mature.

    "What are you going to do? Delete this comment? If you do, I will laugh even harder."

    No, I'm a mature person, as opposed to you.

    "Aren't you that REM guy on Deviantart?"
    "Oh jesus, aren't you the same guy who only spreads hatred on something you seem obsessed about because of some guy?"

    Actually, the guy is obsessed with me, and anyone who calls him out on his bullshit. You should know.

    "Just stop wasting your time with this movie and move on. I mean you made a really bad childish biases review just because you hate it when someone defends and make a good point in respect to creative intentions."

    So making one review means that I obsess over it? Also, good point? Yeah, because whining about people not liking a generic movie is a good point.

    "Just go back to your shitty photography art crap."

    Ok, and may you return to whining and taking the internet seriously.

    "Oh, you know? I should make a review on that."

    Whatever

    "I may also be a furry, but that doesn't mean I can't have my say in reaction to this butthurt review involving creative aesthetic art."

    If by creative, you mean generic and off base, then yes. You could have your say, just don't act like an immature brat over it.

    "You have a stupid Knuckles icon. That looks NOTHING like a real life hedgehog."

    Right, probably because Knuckles is an echidna. The design is actually close to a legitimate anthropomorphic character.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HAHAHA really?? You fucking think I'm Area himself. Of course you fucking do, but to be honest, I just became friends with him.
      area sent to me:
      http://soniclad.deviantart.com/journal/New-Review-554825036
      This is incredibly sad of you to be upset whenever someone disagree with you.
      And the whole 'he's stupid!' claim over "me" just because they don't like the criticism "wwwarea" brings out. Area is right about you. You just whine about someone for calling you out on your immaturity of an asshole.
      In fact, I bet if you believed I was a different guy, you wouldn't act like this.
      One of the funniest comments I've seen was area's icon on DA. I believe that's a NASA photo based off some kind of scan:
      http://www.pd4pic.com/saturn-planet-space-saturn-rings-red-nasa.html
      Even you can't understand scientific technologically.

      You know what? Let's pretend I'm him and see if you will continue to act like an idiot you are.
      Because why does it bloody matter? And it's funny!

      On to the critique against you:

      "Childish: Not having the same opinion as another person, apparently."

      That means nobody is childish according to your idiotically "logic". You do know that 'opinion' is not an excuse to be stupid.
      In fact, isn't all of wwwarea's opinion... different than you?
      :)

      "It wouldn't be the case, if the creators knew how to do it properly. They could've just followed in the footsteps of Balto and made an interesting and memorable story, rather than another forgettable humor driven generic story that has been beaten to death."

      And how do you know? If they really didn't know, then why did would not purposely create a lot of so-called "unrealistic" things like rain dance, and more?
      Besides, even if you were right, it's still value; no low quality, intention, artistic, and lot's of people can value it. And how intentional it was.
      If you are talking about designs, you obviously can't realized that a program that adds 'hair, etc, etc. Has nothing to do with LIMITS.

      "All because I don't like a movie you obsess over? Wow."

      No because you feel the need to review something and completely attack the creative aestheticism of something and pretend this type of "review" somehow makes an artist 'stronger' when in fact, it completely destroys the creative intention, and ruins it for what it is.
      Fair criticism is supposed to add more. Not less.

      "Yeah, enjoyment to the furry community (because the designs resemble wolves drawn on FurAffinity). It was only memorable to the fanbase and the furries. Everyone outside of both communities pretty much forgot about the movie after came out."

      Why do you depend on 'what community' and act like a non-furry counts? You are just so biases and childish. Those people are humans too, and they count. The movie is part-furry and it's not surprising to see some furry fans like it.
      Basically you are saying this: Zelda fans don't count on a Zelda game.
      Also, your claim 'outside' needs a source. Stop saying something you don't even know.

      END OF PART ONE

      Delete
    2. "It wouldn't be an issue if the writers had some creativity. It sounds like you don't care about legitimate quality."
      And your realism garbage makes it "legit" and actual personality not legitimate?
      To be honest, designs are one thing that helps creativity. Designs are obviously one of the recognizable visuals to see.
      It's true that to make a movie, visuals are probably not the only one.
      But your suggestion of getting rid of another legitimate thing (designs) would just make the movie MORE boring it's self.
      I'm not saying the movie that you didn't make is boring (It's not boring to everybody). Heads up on that.

      "All because I dared to criticize an otherwise mediocre movie? How dare I?"
      No because you are a terrible reviewer as a reviewer.

      "So creativity will harm the movie?"
      Home videos of animals who can talk is far less creativity the movie actually offers.
      Do you even know what creativity is?
      That home video idea sounds even lower in terms of quality, and very boring; it takes all the personality value Alpha and Omega already offered away.
      And remember when I said you had no taste? It's true, you can't seem to recognize the valuable parts the artists added.

      "How mature."
      Refusing to read a bad written essay by a possible 14 year old like you doesn't equal 'immature'.

      "No, I'm a mature person, as opposed to you."
      Said the guy who blocked Area.

      "Actually, the guy is obsessed with me, and anyone who calls him out on his bullshit. You should know."
      You made him "obsessed".
      You are at fault for starting fights with him, and if you say something about him, or anything else, then except someone to say something back.
      And how is his stuff "bullshit"? :)

      "So making one review means that I obsess over it? Also, good point? Yeah, because whining about people not liking a generic movie is a good point."
      No, you made this because of your own history with ONE guy, you insulted fans before, and thought of taking back your personality insulting apology to fan (You are so not a man), you made an entire hate group against fans and the movie, etc.
      All because you hate it when someone defends something you could always fucking ignore.

      "Ok, and may you return to whining and taking the internet seriously."
      The idea that it's "odd" to take the internet seriously is only subjective.
      The Internet is nothing but an alternative way to communicate and receive information.
      Oh, and Area didn't even bother to look at your profile and find this. Instead, some stupid Panther prick went on Area's page and directly sent a link to this very review. Nothing else.
      Your white knights are obsessed with "me".

      "If by creative, you mean generic and off base, then yes. You could have your say, just don't act like an immature brat over it."
      You don't realized what creativity even means. Creativity is about doing something new.
      This movie never went in this direction with wolves before, they have awesome creative designs, good enough personality, etc.
      That's creativity for you.

      Immature? I know it, I knew you couldn't fucking learn to take constructive criticism. You will always call anyone who criticizes you "immature".

      "Right, probably because Knuckles is an echidna. The design is actually close to a legitimate anthropomorphic character."
      Now what on earth is a "legitimate anthropomorphic character"? Now your big old ego gets to decide what counts?
      Sorry but it doesn't:
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphic
      Even a fucking rock that talks count.
      And wow, so much for your so called "creativity" even further.
      That designs looks VERY unoriginal then.

      Delete
    3. You both talk the same, you both have whined about Horse News and people who dare to not like Alpha and Omega, you two talk the same (using biases instead of biased) and even saying bloody, you cite science when it isn't necessary, etc. Oh, and what's especially astounding is that wwwarea has admitted to making sock puppet accounts in the past.

      For all I know, you're biased yourself because you bash people simply because they don't share your views on an outright mediocre movie.

      I do take criticism, so long as it comes from a mature person, not someone who cries because he doesn't have his way. To have the latter mindset, and applying it in constant bitching makes you look like a total bigot.

      I feel bad for you. I think you need some serious help.

      Delete
    4. I don't talk the same. He sometimes slightly write better than i do. He say things even I can't understand.
      He talked about horse news too?? Dang I guess that site caused more trouble than before. I wonder if WWWarea's the same guy who sent me info about it about a year ago? Does he have a blogger?

      "who dare to not like Alpha and Omega"
      Pretty sure he's not criticizing you because you don't like it. He's criticizing you because of your beyond behavior of not liking it.

      biases is a word. I also saw that he used 'biased' instead of 'biases' before too.
      I actually learned 'bloody' from him not too long ago.
      I said science because one of your white knights complained about it as a recolor and had to explain it through NASA from what I guessed.
      Yeah I know he did, but that serves no value to count as concrete evidence. Besides he probably did that to experiment something or to be safe, I am unsure.



      "For all I know, you're biased yourself because you bash people simply because they don't share your views on an outright mediocre movie."
      Nah, you're the biased one because you call people "biased" for disagreeing with you and having speech. Have you ever fucking heard of Freedom of Speech before? Have you ever heard the fact that maybe you are wrong on some things?
      You're the bigot who always think you are right over other things.
      Even Area knows he's done some real mistakes in the past.
      Even he knows he admitted to be wrong about something involving the word 'defame' one time in a legal situation about 2 months ago. Including some other things I think.
      Do you see him calling those people bigots who actually send out real valuable sources to him?

      I don't think you do.



      "I do take criticism, so long as it comes from a mature person, not someone who cries because he doesn't have his way. To have the latter mindset, and applying it in constant bitching makes you look like a total bigot."

      Thanks for admitting to not take criticism because you always seem to expect everyone to be 'non-harsh'. Sorry, but criticism goes many ways and clearly you can't take it.
      Now you slander me by calling me "immature" and "bigoted" when I'm just expressing how I feel, and still arguing.
      Do you remember what I said because you couldn't learn to take any criticism from a good matured person like me?
      Look at my 6:58 PM comment on here.


      "I feel bad for you. I think you need some serious help."
      From a guy who's obsessed with spreading hate to the movie since 2014, not learning to let go and enjoy what you want (Very bad for you by the way), being a major cyberbully, making hate videos about things you don't like, hurting other people, advocating suicide, etc., you need help.

      Delete
  3. I want to let you know about this too:
    The only reason why I'm giving very harsh and anger criticism here is because not only this childish review, but your reasoning behind it, your history, your intense cyberbullying, your stupidity, etc.

    Seeing you call the Dictionary a "bible" shows a sign of stubborn stupidity asking to remain stupid.

    I will laugh even harder if you post another journal again. Funny to post about it per reply.


    Also please excuse my username, I am having some trouble with it. This is lightbluediamond.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You seriously think the below is justified criticism?

    "REM's an idiot for not liking Sonic 2"
    "Just to let everyone know, REMRadioheadfan96 doesn't like this game."

    He was basically acting like this because I didn't like one game. Oh, get this, he even realized he was wrong and apologized. It seems that you'd defend anyone who has anything negative to say about me because your own hatred has consumed you beyond salvation.

    "Have you ever fucking heard of Freedom of Speech before? Have you ever heard the fact that maybe you are wrong on some things?"

    Question is, have YOU ever heard of freedom of speech? By attacking me for simply not liking your precious art style, aren't you violating my freedom of speech, and even promoting censorship by denouncing any critical Alpha and Omega review that hurts your feelings?

    "You're the bigot who always think you are right over other things."

    I'm pretty sure wwwarea fits that category better. At least I don't cry whenever someone doesn't like the stuff I do.

    "Even Area knows he's done some real mistakes in the past."

    And he does a great job at realizing his mistakes, by embodying the same behavior he did back then, and continuing to attack people who don't like what he has to say.

    "Even he knows he admitted to be wrong about something involving the word 'defame' one time in a legal situation about 2 months ago. Including some other things I think."

    Ah, another something wwwarea does, stating "I think" at the end of his sentences. Also, that's it? An unspecified event wwwarea admitted he was wrong on?

    "Do you see him calling those people bigots who actually send out real valuable sources to him?"

    He tends to call people bigots because they had the balls to call him out whenever he took his views too far. He's only nice to people who sugar coat their criticism so they don't make him upset.

    "Thanks for admitting to not take criticism because you always seem to expect everyone to be 'non-harsh'. Sorry, but criticism goes many ways and clearly you can't take it."

    You're missing the point. If I receive criticism along the lines of "HOW DARE YOU NOT LIKE SOMETHING I (AND OTHERS) LIKE!", how could I respect that. Frankly, it sounds less like criticism, and more like whining. You have a long way to go if you want to be a true critic.

    "Now you slander me by calling me "immature" and "bigoted" when I'm just expressing how I feel, and still arguing."

    Right, and complaining because I dared to criticize a movie you have an unhealthy lust for.

    "Do you remember what I said because you couldn't learn to take any criticism from a good matured person like me?"

    Because whining that an art style was criticized is totally mature.

    "From a guy who's obsessed with spreading hate to the movie since 2014, not learning to let go and enjoy what you want (Very bad for you by the way), being a major cyberbully, making hate videos about things you don't like, hurting other people, advocating suicide, etc., you need help."

    Thanks for proving that you're nothing but a sock puppet account. Only someone like wwwarea would say something like that. On to the paragraph, you're spreading your hatred for people who dare to not praise your precious movie, you've yet to let go of your grudge against me, you take the internet far too seriously and you defend disgusting acts, yet you claim I need help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "H...."

      How old are you?
      Because my comments here isn't the same thing. I never called you childish or biased for not liking alpha & omega. I only called your review that and my anger was based around your history.
      Take a look at what I found recently.
      http://wwwarea.deviantart.com/journal/WTF-554954771

      "Question is.."
      "Attack" you? For not liking it?
      My god you're an idiot. What I did, was criticized your biased behavior while not liking it. Such as this review and your own past.
      The problem with 'critics' is that it's meant to IMPROVE things. Your suggestion of "better" does NOT improve it. It ruins it.
      And no I'm not. Ever heard the fucking fact that Freedom of Speech goes both ways? You BAWWING about someone calling you out as wrong clearly shows you don't support Freedom of Speech.

      If you say something in the fucking public, expect people to say something back. Which BTW, is NOT censorship. Instead, you saying I am censoring you, creates censorship. It creates an illusion that you get to say anything you want, but others are not allowed to say anything back; that's real censorship!

      "I'm p..."
      No he's not. He's actually bringing out your bigotry.
      And 'crying' about negative rude behavior like yours does NOT equal bigotry.
      Trust me, I've seen what you did. You are the biggest bigot I've ever meant in my life on DeviantArt. Not only that, but you're a big hypocrite too.

      "And he d.."

      He's not doing the same thing. And people who starts fight with him doesn't deserve any respect.
      This so-called "attack" as you like to call it according to your own ego, is called, 'criticism'. Sometimes called 'self-defence'.
      And no, what you did, is NOT criticism, it's cyberbullying. People like you don't deserve respect for that.

      "Ah, anoth.."

      Here we go again. >_>

      "He tends to call people b.."

      The reason why is because this idea of calling good behavior "bad", and calling it out is actually a problem. Maybe that's why he said it?
      Because those cyberbullies are HORRIBLE at arguing and are nothing but cyberbullies themselves who pretend their opinion is right, and nothing more. That's exactly what bigotry means buddy.
      When area argues, he actually argues based off observation, research, the dictionary, law, and more.
      What does your white knights do? Nothing.
      And I find it very sad you deny all that stuff.

      'I think' is an honest term. And the last time I've ever used that word was a long time ago..... I think.

      "You're mi.."

      YOU'RE missing the point. You always miss the god damn point that I don't criticize you for 'not liking' it.
      Take my advice man: Even if you LIKED the movie, and said the same thing. I am sure my speech would never change on here.

      Because remember, and I'll say it one more time here:
      I don't "attack" you for not liking it, I criticize you due to your behavior while either liking it or not liking it.

      "Right, and complaining because I dared to criticize a movie you have an unhealthy lust for."
      And what's wrong with criticizing you for criticizing it? People are allowed to do that.
      And how is it "unhealthy"? I would feel depress (unhealthy) without what I love.
      And look at you, the big man who ATTACKS me for loving it.
      *clap clap* I guess people can't attack you for 'disliking it' but it's OK to attack those who 'likes it'! According to you! Bravo!!

      Delete
    2. "Because whining that an art style was criticized is totally mature."
      That's not immature, stop dictating when something is and isn't. Complaining about someone who attacks an artist aesthetic style is not immature.
      Besides, YOU whine about the art-style. And you are pretty immature for doing that, attacking creativity in favor of your own religion that you call 'realism'.

      "Thanks for proving that you'r..."

      Or.. I learned about it when browsing WWWarea's profile on DA, and his blog.
      More slander.
      The internet is actually a serious place for some people.
      You have no right to decide when something is disgusting on people not you, you bigot.

      You depend on who again, because it's something wwwarea would say. This is why your brain is so tiny. Face it, you are a disgusting harmful person online. And it doesn't matter who brings you out on that. It still stands.
      You're the sick and disgusting person that needs help.

      Delete
    3. "Referring to your history."

      Hmmmm, wwwarea has said the same thing. Not to mention, if you really were criticizing me, you'd point out the actual flaws in the review (such as mix ups with the plot, or missing any key points). Crying that I criticized something as trivial as an art design is not criticism, that's just plain immature. Yes, people are allowed to criticize me, but if their definition of criticism is crying that I don't share their views, how the heck could I respect that?

      You've yet to prove that you aren't just another sock puppet account made by wwwarea. What leads to heavier credence of this theory is that you could post this under not only your Blogger account, but your Wordpress account too.

      Delete
    4. "Hmmmm, wwwarea has said the same thing. Not to mention, if you really were criticizing me, you'd point out the actual flaws in the review (such as mix ups with the plot, or missing any key points). Crying that I criticized something as trivial as an art design is not criticism, t.."

      You are the biggest fucking self-centered idiot I've ever seen on the Internet.
      I'm sorry Rem, but it's criticism. If it's not, then your shitty bring out of 'art-styles' and selfishly comparing it to realism isn't criticism either.
      Even outside of that, it's not really a real criticism because I've heard criticism in media content is about improving.
      Not about making the movie even more generic or less. And I think I've heard that criticism is about respect. Not whiny "I don't your style! Change it to my kind!"

      Seriously since when were you the master of all the fucking definitions and language?
      Oh wait (Learned from him), you don't accept the dictionary do you? You deny common sense, and admit to being a self-centered brat who thinks you can decide what you want on other people because you want to.

      "You've yet to prove that you aren't just another sock puppet account made by wwwarea. What leads to heavier credence of this theory is that you could post this under not only your Blogger account, but your Wordpress account too."

      How does it prove it? Because I agree with the fact that WWWarea has a bigger brain than you?
      A person who denies his "bible", makes fun of "science", selfishly decide when criticism count out of your own shitty head, etc.makes you a complete self-centered..... bigo"OMG IT"S YOU WWWAREA!!! OMG I WAS RIGHTZ *Leaves*

      Seriously, learn something for once!
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criticism
      "the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything."
      Also I am sure attacking a creative intention and suggesting the wolves to look and act generic is a fault.

      Also, all from my own assumption. I am glad you suffer the blogger comment count limit. :)

      Delete
  5. Well said worldsoffurry.
    This guy really needs help.

    I been abused by this guy for so long on DA, he always starts fight with other people on DA, can't learn to let go of people sharing Alpha and Omega and existing a cult classic for it, etc.

    I pretty much KNOW why he made that review and it's either to piss me off, censor the expression of people loving it and sharing it, or to piss off any Alpha and Omega fan in general. Note: Could be more than one of each.

    Clearly this review isn't simply because 'he doesn't like it'. If that was true, he would of watched the movie, and this would of been the only time he mentions the movie, then move on. That would be one of the best evidence.
    But hehe, that's REALLY not the case! From what I've seen...

    To be honest, if this review was negative, and only suggested to 'add more' instead of attacking the valuable points such as the creative designs, the intention of inspiration of the story, and etc., and all was left was to suggest 'adding' more to it, finding bugs and glitches, etc.
    Then this review would of been so much less bias.

    I would still argue maybe, and I won't agree on it's final rating, but it would of been a WAY better review and a more fair one.
    Alas, it wasn't.

    I will still be mad because of REM's past too.

    ------

    And yes, I will say this is wwwarea from this account.
    Even if I was pretending to be a fictional person from lightbluediamond, I would probably do that to test you. To see if you will act different, but alas, you are completely biases from what I've seen in your awful arguments as for example:

    "Only someone like wwwarea would say something like that."

    That could be why I used a sock puppet(s) on Fanpop during those 3 months.

    --

    In the end REM, you completely abused people, especially me with that god awful ED article you made to cyberbully me.
    And no, that article is NOT even a joke. At least mostly. So therefor, I shall take it seriously, as a major cyberbullying post.
    And I clearly say so more because you went back on there.

    You will never deserve respect from me for a long time. I also found something interesting from crime records online involving your name, and I will be open to tell anyone your bad history you've had online with other people. Especially me.
    I've made some mistakes before (And no, me standing up against you involving me it's self is NOT one of them, but that heart attack, not sure.), but it doesn't make you non-guilty of your crimes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice to see you're still talking to yourself.

      I only made the review because I wanted to start off with an easy target. The only reason you got offended is because you always do whenever somebody doesn't praise the movie.

      Also, aren't you promoting censorship by implying that nobody can criticize the art style? If that's the case, then a lot of the reviews against Breadwinners must be purged.

      You fail to realize that you have an undying obsession with me, and it's eating away at your, quite frankly, non-existent social life. I'm saying this as someone who's concerned with your health. I want you to do these things:

      -Shut off the computer.
      -Take a deep breath.
      -Go outside.
      -Make some friends.
      -Maybe go to a bar and drink to take down your sorrow (you're within the drinking age now)

      Just do anything to get your mind off of something that doesn't matter in the long run. If you keep this up, it might possibly kill you.

      Delete
    2. Just fucking stop.

      "I only made the review because I wanted to start off with an easy target."
      An easy... target?
      Just stop with your crap, clearly WWW proves your reasoning.

      Criticizing the art style IS censorship; it limits creativity.
      And it's not really real criticism. Plus you whine about it because it's not your favorite thing. Maybe your Knuckles should look like a real.. whatever the fuck it is. And if you say "umm that's not critiicsm" then no wonder 'WWWarea' was right to call you one huge bigot, and a hypocrite.

      "You fail to rea..."

      You fucking made him that way you fucking monster.
      And really? Obsessed?
      First, the only reason why he sometimes check on you is because of you stalking him.
      And second:
      I think you're the one who's obsessed with him, FAR MORE than area:
      https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=Wwwarea&action=history
      You are a fucking piece of asshole you know that?

      It's clearly your own fault Rem. Clearly you created this issue with him.

      And I am so fucking angry at you for what you've done to him.
      You basically ruined his fucking media online life you disgusting pig.
      He's right. You don't deserve respect from him, me, or any good person.
      And I hope your girl friend sees what you do to people.

      I don't care that much of what you think of me. I don't give a shit that much if you think I'm area. It clearly doesn't change the fact that you're still as guilty as you are for doing this to people.
      This is like the most painful thing you've fucking done through the cyber world.
      Rem, people like area needs a social life to have a good life. There may be nothing to do without a computer other than a generic job, or whatever the heck he does.

      Just stop, and stop stalking him and stop doing anything about him.
      Maybe he will stop. Though it's kinda too late when it comes to Dramtica.
      If you want that to happen, you know what you can do. At least.

      Delete
    3. "An easy... target?"

      Yes. Alpha and Omega is so flawed, it serves as a good starter review for beginners.

      "Just stop with your crap, clearly WWW proves your reasoning."

      Nope, he just exaggerates claims and continues to obsess over me because I refuse to convert to his beliefs. Also, he's one to talk, since he kept on badgering AniMat and Bobsheaux because they criticized Alpha and Omega. I'm sorry that I'm different and I'm sorry that I don't share your views, but I'm my own person, whether you like it or not.

      "Criticizing the art style IS censorship; it limits creativity."

      Ok, so by pointing out the flawed art style, I'm going up to the creators and forcing them to do it different? Your rage is blinding you. It seems as if you're just making an excuse to justify complaining that I don't like your precious art style. You need to understand that not everyone has the same opinion on the art style. When the first movie came out, people dissed the art style, and that didn't stop the creators from continuing to use it for four more installments.

      "And it's not really real criticism."

      Because real criticism is sugarcoating stuff so I don't, shock and horror, actually point out the negative factors.

      "Plus you whine about it because it's not your favorite thing."

      That isn't the case. A flawed art style is a flawed art style. I'd likely make the same claims, even if I'm within the same vicinity as your ilk.

      "Maybe your Knuckles should look like a real.. whatever the fuck it is."

      The point being, the Sonic series actually has a decent art style, and it actually attempts to separate from reality, whereas your movie still tries to keep some slight realism (why else would wolves still be in the woods, with no clothes, walking on all fours, be part of packs, and other stuff), and thus makes the intentions look rather schizophrenic.

      "And if you say "umm that's not critiicsm" then no wonder 'WWWarea' was right to call you one huge bigot, and a hypocrite."

      Hypocrisy: Wwwarea cites freedom of speech, yet he refuses to let people thoroughly argue against him, and he lambasts people who want to go all out on a critical review of Alpha and Omega. He only uses it when it serves as a benefit to him.

      Bigot: He treats his views as fact and he refuses to look at alternative analogies made by his opponents. He asserts himself as someone who's always right, when in reality, his points are questionable at best.

      "You fucking made him that way you fucking monster."

      He could've easily ignored me, and the article against him. He could've made himself look like a mature person, but no, he took it too far and made himself look like a fool.

      "First, the only reason why he sometimes check on you is because of you stalking him."

      Uh, I'm stalking him? Whenever he's mentioned in the slightest negative fashion, he immediately chastises said person. He's always snooping around, making sure nobody dares criticize him. Usually, my friends tell me of his wrong doings, which is how I know what he's up to.

      "And second:
      I think you're the one who's obsessed with him, FAR MORE than area:
      You are a fucking piece of asshole you know that?"

      He's providing more material to be put in his article, and no one else is adding it in. As wwwarea continues to make an ass out of himself, he's becoming more of a bankable lolcow. Also, piece of asshole? Where'd you come up with that?

      Part one.

      Delete
    4. "It's clearly your own fault Rem. Clearly you created this issue with him."

      Only reason you would say that is because you're (most likely, I've yet to see evidence proving otherwise) a sock puppet account.

      "And I am so fucking angry at you for what you've done to him."

      He kinda deserved most of it for being an asshole to nearly everyone who wasn't his clone.

      "You basically ruined his fucking media online life you disgusting pig."

      Again, he brought it upon himself by acting like an immature individual, attacking people just because they're critical against Alpha and Omega and because they don't like fetishes. Also, he should focus more on his offline life. I tried to be nice and suggest he take a break from the internet for a while so he could cool off, but he just continued to act immature.

      "He's right. You don't deserve respect from him, me, or any good person."

      I never wanted respect from you both (aka, just you since the former two are likely the same) because you fight for the wrong things. As for everyone else, I'm far more rational and collected, I care about others and I don't cry because an art style was criticized.

      "And I hope your girl friend sees what you do to people."

      I'm sure she won't mind, once I tell her the reason behind it all.

      "I don't care that much of what you think of me. I don't give a shit that much if you think I'm area. It clearly doesn't change the fact that you're still as guilty as you are for doing this to people."

      Which is why you're still replying to me and taking my review personally.

      "This is like the most painful thing you've fucking done through the cyber world."

      Calling out an immature man? I'd say it was worth it then.

      "Rem, people like area needs a social life to have a good life."

      Ok, so why isn't he going outside and making friends? Spending all day online, overreacting to pointless stuff on the internet defeats the purpose of having a proper social life.

      "There may be nothing to do without a computer other than a generic job, or whatever the heck he does."

      At least he'd actually be attempting to make something of his life.

      "Just stop, and stop stalking him and stop doing anything about him."

      Ok, fine, as if I was stalking him to begin with.

      "Maybe he will stop. Though it's kinda too late when it comes to Dramtica."

      It'd be a miracle if he just stops embroiling himself in pointless drama.

      "If you want that to happen, you know what you can do. At least."

      Question is, does HE know what he could do to stop the drama? No? It's quite simple really. He should stop blackmailing people and making them follow contracts (that's illegal in some areas), he should stop getting upset when people give negative reviews on Alpha and Omega, he should stop constantly defending disturbing fetishes and pedophiles from people who don't like them and he seriously should spend some time off the internet.

      Delete
  6. "Yes. Alp.."

    "I say it's so flawed because I depend on what people think, oh and it's not my kind of movie" - Fixed.
    And 'art-style' has nothing to do with flaws/lower quality.
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is.

    "Nop..."
    No he doesn't, he said something that actually happened. And maybe his 'beliefs' are good? Maybe very well thought criticism?
    He has a right to share his opinion on those reviewers. And I want to ask you, how did you find Bob's review? I was told that you stalked him yet again by commenting offensive "ignore 5000" because you hate it when someone uses freedom of speech.

    "Ok, s.."
    Do you see me forcing you to delete your blog? It's still censorship in the sense that it makes people believe the delusion that only a certain idiot like you can only count. Also, your suggestion stifles creativity.
    Art styles can never be a flaw because it's based off the expression of an artist and for anyone who may like it to enjoy.
    You saying "It's a flaw" because of you is like: "I selfishly want them to be MY kind of style, you suck because it's not my thing!"
    Only furry haters did that or at most. And I know I don't really base off what critics think, but even 95% of the critics didn't talk about it.

    "Bec.."
    Huh? You bringing out a creative intention of an artist that was made for others to enjoy isn't real criticism. And clearly you are at fault for acting like it's "criticism".

    "That isn't the case. A flawed art style i.."
    And it's not a flaw. Just because you think it is whether you base it off others or not, doesn't make it a flaw.
    Maybe Sonic and Knuckles is a flaw because they don't look real.
    A style is a flaw, because I believe so!


    "The point bein.."
    That's the thing though, you can't realize the fact that you are allowed to have mixed realism in it. That's the point. All creative art has no limit.
    You can go:
    Pure fantasy, mostly fantasy, semi-fantasy, little fantasy, realism, between, and more.
    And you selfishly stifle creativity because you can't seem to understand the fact that creativity is allowed to do anything it wants. You don't have special rights to judge that.
    If you really believed in creativity, you wouldn't attack the semi-fantasy part.
    Also, Sonic acts real sometimes.

    "Hypocrisy: Wwwarea cites freedom of speech, yet he refuses to let people thoroughly argue against him, and he lambasts people who want to go all out on a critical review of Alpha and Omega. He only uses it when it serves as a benefit to him."
    Some speech isn't free. Also, arguing back doesn't equal government censorship. To really violate Free Speech, you need to illegally take action against it or have the government censor it.
    Learn about the First Amendment if you live in the US.

    "Bigot:"
    Treating a belief as fact isn't bigotry. Bigotry is much more than that, and you always pretend you are right, and not tolerant it, and always keep doing so. That's bigotry. Also the idea that it's "questionable" is based off more stupidity because he really observes, good theories, good law quoting, dictionary, etc. And you idiotically say they don't count You are the questionable one.

    "He.."
    And you could of not make it.
    Plus the article effects him, he has every right to go against it and speak against it. It's not his fault that he did that. You caused it to do that because of your effectual shit. How can he take it too far? Clearly he proved that it effected him.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oops, didn't hit reply?

    -

    "Uh, I'm s.."
    That's not criticism, it's bullying. End of story.
    He still had a right to do that because it still involves him. You on the other hand are a real stalker, but believes that your trash is "criticism" and "isn't" stalking.
    And he didn't do anything wrong. If you keep saying that, then it's more bigotry.

    "H.."
    You are Deltra, stop hiding yourself. WWW is not adding it, because he's not going to the article and adding it. Stop hiding what you do.
    He's not. He's doing a rightful thing about standing up against it. Whatever he wants in his life.

    ===

    "On..."
    Even if I was him, it's still true.

    "He kind.."
    The idea of "deserve" from you is nothing but a brat who cries over him because you think he's an "ass" when in reality he only stood up for himself, rightfully shared his opinions, etc. Despite a few mistakes such as the whole death thing.

    "Again, he brought it upon himself by acting like an immature individual, attacking people just because they're critical against Alpha and Omega and because they don't like fetishes. Also, he should focus more on his offline life. I tried to be nice and suggest he take a break from the internet for a while so he could cool off, but he just continued to act immature."

    No he didn't. You did, and he wasn't being an ass at least 98& of the time. You had the choice to not do that, and learn more.
    You clearly are a cyberbully. You sound just like a bully who blames someone who either expresses himself, or stands up against a bully like you.
    He can't focus offline all the time, and you slander him by saying he "attacks" people who 'simply' doesn't like fetishes? People like you attacked people by having fetishes, that it's self does not deserve respect and he has a right to disagree with reviews.

    "I never wan.."

    He doesn't fight for the wrong things. You saying that people being themselves, promoting creativity, and freedom is "wrong" shows how selfish and bigoted you are. You don't care about others at all.
    He has a right to "cry" about it, etc. And you are one hell of a stupid adult. You are not a good person.
    Then I hope you get an ED article like what he wanted too.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I'm sur..."
    And I will warn her and tell her the truth before or after you slander area with the false accusations of "attacking" people for simply not liking something.
    Or the other false accusation about "attacking" a reviewer because he wanted to criticize back.
    Or any other false accusations.

    "Wh.."
    Because I care about someone who's been repetitively abused by you.

    "Calli.."
    Even if he was immature, it still doesn't justify what you've done. And thanks for admitting that you hurt people.
    Also you doing that to him because you THINK he is, is exactly what bullying is. A bully does crap to people based off their beliefs.

    "Ok, so why isn't he going outside and making friends? Spending all day online, overreacting to pointless stuff on the internet defeats the purpose of having a proper social life."
    It's not that simple. It all depends on location, and how you can get to them.
    The Internet is easier, and while it's NOT pointless. Society in RL is very shitty. Area is very different, Society is just as bad as the big media, but the Internet do make it easier to find friends that way, friends that will accept people.
    But many people outside are just cyberbullies who won't learn to respect and tolerant someone just for having a different style of sexuality, lifestyle, and more.

    "At least .."
    But life is also supposed to be about happiness. Just because he has one, doesn't make it better other than making some money.

    "O.."
    Remember that history from Dramatica? Remember the recent time you've found Area's comment on one of a new review, remember the time that you (creep!) somehow found Area's steam I think, and just added it? Remember the time you always try to find area, etc?
    That's cyberstalking. No excuses of what you believe. Yes I also read Area's recent journal about it.

    "It'd b.."
    It's not pointless.

    "Question is, does HE know what he could do to stop the drama? No? It's quite simple really. He should stop blackmailing people and making them follow contracts (that's illegal in some areas), he should stop getting upset when people give negative reviews on Alpha and Omega, he should stop constantly defending disturbing fetishes and pedophiles from people who don't like them and he seriously should spend some time off the internet."
    Why does he do it? Because people are stalking him, starting fights with him, slandering him, etc.
    He actually has a justifying reason to keep talking about it.
    You don't. You can ignore what you don't like easily when it's not about you at first.
    Blackmail, contracts, illegal? Proof? I think REAL contracts is illegal, but this one is not the same I believe. But I shall try to look this one up.
    He didn't blackmail you for money. At least for what I believe so far.
    Yet don't you always accept deals/"contracts"?

    He has a right to react to those reviews, and he has a right to defend "disturbing" fetishes. Doing that doesn't interfere with life, but when you attack someone for defending sexual expression, that starts it.
    Also, if you decide that it's disturbing, then Area has a right to call your 'hetero' stuff 'disturbing'. Even I find humans kissing disturbing. Guess you shouldn't defend that now!

    So you failed once more. Because all you do is decide without good faith, good reliable sources, and more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shut your mouth cause your talking too much and don't give a FUCK anyway! LET YOURSELF GO! LET YOURSELF GO! LET YOURSELF GO!

      Delete
  9. I agree with you on this movie. It was boring as hell and had no proper baring on wolves or logic. But I disagree about 2010 sucking as a whole for media. For me, I liked most of the music, some of the movies which included Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief and Fate/Stay Night: Unlimited Blade Works and I personally like Regular Show but I respect your opinion.

    ReplyDelete