@Angrybrony
Speaking of SF Debris, I checked up on his former colleague Confused Matthew today, and
boy has he turned into the normiest of normies when it comes to movie takes. It’s quite shocking really, because when he was a reviewer, he at least backed up his controversial takes with succinct reasoning. To paraphrase him, he basically said he’s done an about-face on all his original views as expressed in his reviews, and has more normie takes on controversial movies than when he was a reviewer.
The reason I bring this up here, is because he himself said in his video that his reviews were tied into his schtick, that being well,
confused on why certain properties got the reception that they did. Note that there’s nothing wrong with people, even media reviewers/analysts, having views that change, but that if those views form the basis for your reviewing schtick, it can hurt you. To Matthew’s credit, he’s said he’s retired from Confused Matthew, so I’ll cut him some slack for having different views now than when he was a reviewer.
…But what if he continued to do Confused Matthew with is more mainstream takes? Would that work, or would it be antithetical to the conceit which he started doing reviews with, namely
being confused as to why a movie got the reception it did with the flaws he’s pointing out? Would it work with say, a reviewer of nostalgic properties who’s conceit is that they aren’t as good as you remember them? What about a comic book reviewer who’s conceit is only reviewing terrible comic books?