Go for it dude! I'm making The Yellow Rabbit from the movie, and it's looking as in the base, movie accurate. I'm also a beginner, So If i can do it, You Can Too!

Well, I did put myself through near slave labor for a month straight, so that probably helped

Definitely not with this kind of foam, I would also have to have access to a 3D printer

bruh

"Also, claiming that those who complain specifically about Disney Star Wars or Disney Marvel are just conservative grifters is yet another oversimplification that is just as bad as what you're standing against. " nah, they're grifters bro. they have a choice to not talk about disney for another consecutive time, but nah. we need the maneh bruh

@@TheIqram12 stop just asserting that and actually think about it for a moment. The people claiming Disney makes bad shows/movies aren't the same people getting angry about "wokeness" in Disney. He's labeling one group of people as another in order to discredit any criticism of his sacred cow. Not everyone who hates Disney is a conservative or a grifter. I guarantee you don't even know what either of those words are.

@@michaelkaruza490 both of them are separated with a very thin line so yeah what he's saying is valid in certain aspect.

@@TheIqram12 They really aren't. Hell, a lot of people who complain about wokeness in Disney aren't even conservative. They're centrist or even liberal. Just because someone isn't explicitly a leftist doesn't make them conservative. Just because someone disagrees with you or routinely talks about something important to them, that doesn't make them a grifter. Again, you have no idea what either term actually means, so your analysis that the people who criticize Marvel and Lucasfilm are just conservative grifters, or a "thin line" away from it, is hard to take seriously. Oh, and if you agree that they're a "thin line" away from it, that means they aren't the same. You yourself have admitted that they don't fall into the same group, so I don't know why you think his assertion that these people are the same is valid at all.

@@michaelkaruza490 they're aren't the same, but there's moments where it'll be one.

Eh, that's like saying someone cared about making Madame Web. Sure, someone probably cared about making it, but the people who truly cared weren't the right people and the if right people cared it was probably for the wrong reasons.

Someone hasn't done their research, but I have. screenrant.com/eternals-movie-director-chloe-zhao-creative-control/ screenrant.com/captain-marvel-2-nia-dacosta-creative-freedom-response/ wegotthiscovered.com/movies/thor-ragnarok-director-taika-waititi-creative-freedom/ screenrant.com/james-gunn-guardians-of-galaxy-2-marvel-creative-freedom/ bleedingcool.com/movies/ant-man-and-the-wasp-director-peyton-reed-freedom/ bleedingcool.com/movies/ryan-coogler-praises-marvel-studios/

The only reason Edgar Wright was kicked off of Ant Man was because of the old Marvel executive board. Kevin Feige was out dealing with Sony for the rights to Spider-Man, he wasn't available to go over the Ant Man script. The people who did read it was the executive board, and they were some old people who didn't see the value in creative freedom. If Kevin Feige was there, Edgar Wright likely wouldn't have been "kicked off" of Ant Man (he left of his own will because he didn't like what the board did to his script). Very soon after Ant Man, the exec board was removed from Marvel Studios and now creative freedom has a much greater value within the company.

Oh tons. It changed from project to project, but Disney really only has creative control over its own movies, like how they interfered with the production of Wish. Marvel has control over Marvel and Lucasfilm has control over Lucasfilm. And even within those, the directors are given tons of creative freedom. Like with Marvel Studios, Feige really only has to interfere if the project isn't coherent with the existing MCU. But besides that, directors get to go nuts. If we were talking back in the late 2000's, then directors wouldn't have much creative control at all, but nowadays we get stuff like X-Men '97 and Werewolf by Night. And with a project like Obi-Wan Kenobi, the director was allowed to mess with canon a little to fit their creative vision. And if they didn't have creative freedom, would we really get a character like G'iah in Secret Invasion? Creative freedom is abundant in these studios. The only time you don't get much creative freedom is whenever you have to make a live action Spider-Man spin-off movie for Sony, since those are purely made for the money

True, especially with how Disney is aiming for quantity in a lot of their studios. Like with the movie Wish, it certainly had the potential to be great, but it only had like 2 drafts. You can tell from the final script that they hadn't fully realized the ideas they wanted to convey, ideas that would've been much more fleshed out if they were given more time to rewrite the script. And then there's a movie like Lisa Frankenstein that had a marketing budget of around $0 and didn't make back its production budget because no one saw the movie. But I still think good artists can shine even in a messy production, and good movies are still good even if they have bad marketing. For example, A New Hope was messy as hell. George Lucas was bad at directing, the actors hated their own lines, and there were regular weather and technical issues. But the edit is what saved Star Wars from becoming a massive flop. The same thing happened in gaming with Halo 2. Halo 2 has one one of the most historically rushed development cycles of any AAA game on the market. The entire game was put together in 10 months, people got divorced over the game's development, everyone was crunching to get the game done. It was a disaster, but Halo 2 still came out and became one of the best in the Halo series. Good artists can still create good art under even the worst conditions, even if being put through those conditions should never happen to anyone. Of course, these are anecdotal and shouldn't be taken as the norm, but I still think it's important to recognize the power of good artists.

Superhero fatigue is a grifter myth, same for the idea that nothing after Endgame is unique and creative.

@@comedicidiot I wouldn't say it's so much a myth, as I'm(me, personally) am sick of seeing the same thing over and over. It's a common thing, the "hero's journey" as a storytelling trope. It's been done so many times, it's an absolute cliché now. That was my point with the MCU/DCEU or superheroes in general. Star Wars, my absolute passion and favorite, needs more story diversity. Other stuff done in a tone like Rogue One/Andor. The Obi-Wan or Boba Fett shows were missing realistic portrayals for the world they're in. Kenobi dealing with his perceived failure and PTSD was great, until it wasn't. He just "got over it". That's unrealistic. Boba opting to go become the crime lord? Cool. But he doesn't do anything to earn it. His Sarlaac survival could've been a whole season, or at least a solid chunk with no flipping between different time periods. He only got one: "Look at how much of a badass I am" moment and it was in the episode "The Tragedy" of season 2 of the Mandalorian. Then we reunite Dyn and Grogu. Why?! That entire bit, and the rematch with Vader seemed focus grouped to death with only corporate influence.

Kenobi didn't just "get over it", he came to terms with it once he recognized that his friend was truly dead, that Anakin's death wasn't his fault. "You didn't kill Anakin Skywalker, I did." seems to be the part you didn't pay attention to. And you gotta be kidding about the Vader fight, that was the best part of the entire show. Can you imagine just how boring watching Boba Fett get out of the Sarlaac for an entire half of the season would be? Besides, Dave Filoni was barely involved with those projects, the most he did on the Boob of Boba Fett was for the two Mandalorian episodes. The reuniting of Dyn and Grogu was absolutely some corporate meddling, but they have a cute dynamic that I personally wanted to see way more of. I do think it should have been done in Mando's own show, though. The "hero's journey" is just a common storytelling structure, it's got nothing to do with superheroes in particular. Now, let's say we talk about what you actually mean by "hero's journey", that being just becoming a hero, that's discrediting the themes used to make each project unique. Ms. Marvel is heavily focused on ancestry, She-Hulk views the world of superheroes through the legal lens, Spider-Man: Now Way Home is about learning the accept the great responsibility that comes with great power. And then there's less conventional stories like Werewolf by Night, a story without a clear hero that's mostly about learning to trust. Saying every Marvel or DC movie is just about the hero's journey is discrediting most of what comes out of either of them and the thematic relevancy of any of those films. It sounds to me that you just don't really enjoy superhero movies, which is absolutely fine, it's just unfair to claim that they're all bland if you don't really care to see anything more than just the surface of any of these movies.

DIY Christmas ornaments

Cushion foam, 1 inch thick

...are you having a stroke?

Jeez, that describes way too many movies

​@@comedicidiot I know, right?? If this movie had gone that route, I could just see the ending being the dance party with everyone celebrating Afton being killed off, and it just cuts to the saferoom with him twitching while the music is muffled for a bit through the walls, and it just cuts back to the main stage with Foxy grabbing the mic. Bonus points for Mr. Cupcake "tripping" Mike into Vanessa. Balloon Boy just starts breakdancing for no reason. The song is either a Backstreet Boys song or NSync to be accurate to the 2000s. All physics of the characters are broken for this scene while Chica just does a backflip, they don't even do a Torreador March reference all. Every single movie that does that plot does this sort of thing, I swear, lol.

@@raelogan the dance party at the end of a movie is the epitome of generic

@@comedicidiot Exactly! 😆

Please explain to me how a road trip is a generic plot for a horror movie? You can’t just pretend the movie isn’t a horror movie and as a horror movie it is in fact very generic.

I don't think anyone has that problem

The gameplay of FNAF 1 seems pretty basic in retrospect, especially with how future games and fans games have expanded on the concept. But back in 2014, the sit-and-survive structure in FNAF was unheard of. No one was really aware of that formula, most horror games had the ability to run away from a threat, but FNAF was revolutionary for the fact that you couldn't escape, the only thing you could do was keep the animatronics out so you didn't die. That's why back in 2014, it was considered one of the scariest games out there, because FNAF was one of a kind. Also, there's a difference between cheap jumpscares and earned jumpscares. Cheap jumpscares are the kind in some bad horror movie where something pops up around the corner out of nowhere, BOOM loud noise, cheap shock, yadda yadda yadda. But in FNAF 1, jumpscares are only a result of an error from the player. If you play the game right, you never get jumpscared, because FNAF jumpscares are consequences of failure. Those kinds of jumpscares are earned. There's a reason FNAF 1 didn't explain much. It explained the very basics, like some kids were murdered and now they possess the robots, but it doesn't explain much more because Scott didn't have a reason to explain more at the time. While FNAF 1 was being made, Scott intended for it to be his final game. He didn't feel the need to give an elaboration for a story that he didn't expect much to happen to. Due to some luck on Scott's part, the game got super popular and now Scott is super rich off of the entire franchise that's spun off from that one game, and almost every new piece of media is trying to expand upon what that first game presented in some way. Also, if you don't care, then why ask the questions at all? When it comes to FNAF 2, I'm fairly certain you're playing it wrong. The battery lasts the entire night if you use it the intended way, so whatever you're doing is just unnecessarily draining it. The mask works 100% of the time if you use it right. Animatronics comes in, you put on the mask, wait for it to leave, then take off the mask. Simple. The only animatronic that isn't fooled is Foxy, which is why the flashlight exists, because Foxy is repelled by it. The point of the puppet isn't exactly to make sense (although, it does make sense if you put any care in to learning what this franchise is about at all, which you don't, so you shouldn't even be putting your foot into the door of a conversation you don't care about), it's just supposed to be a gameplay mechanic that keeps you distracted. The game would be too easy if all you were doing was the stuff in the office, since you would never even need to use the cameras. The puppet works as a distraction from whatever is happening in the office and a source off power that you can drain. The puppet exists for game balance. I like how you just completely dismiss the other games. You complain that nothing makes sense and that you don't know anything that's going on, but then you ignore all the games that give that context. Seriously, FNAF 3 onward is where most of the context for the story comes from, FNAF 3, 4, 5, and 6 are some of the most important games for the overall lore, but you just go, "Eh, fuck 'em."

brain dead take from cyborg man..

I’m not quite sure where you get this idea of William Afton from, because that certainly isn’t how William is characterized in the games or the books. As I said in the video, the characterization of William in the movie is very much like the characterization of William in the Silver Eyes (all the way back in 2015). In the Silver Eyes, a couple of teens break into the old Freddy Fazbear’s location that’s been closed for years and paved over with a mall. William Afton poses as this security guard named Dave Miller, and watches over these kids and talks to them nice and casual, as if he’s just a normal guy. However, he eventually finds his Spring Bonnie suit and starts capturing them. Once he’s captured them, he puts them in the Fredbear suit and informs them of the springlocks. He likes to toy with his victims, he likes to get in their heads before he kills them. It’s insane, it’s manipulative, but it’s what he enjoys. This exact same behavior is exhibited in the FNAF movie. Afton toys with Mike, gets him into Freddy’s, taunts Mike about his brother, throws him around as if he’s nothing. He plays with his food before he eats it. Now, I am heavily relying on the books here, but it’s very difficult to glean characterization from the very few lines of dialogue Afton has in the games and some 8-bit minigames. However, given that the Silver Eyes was released in 2015, before William Afton had a name in the games, before Sister Location, it seems fairly obvious that this is how Scott intends Afton to be viewed. Not as a shadowy and mysterious murderer, but as a crazed and impulsive madman that messes with and manipulates his victims. This is Afton’s character, and what’s seen in the movie matches that perfectly. As I said in another comment, the animatronics aren’t just lashing out at adults. In FNAF 2, they’re suspicious of adults, which is why they just stare, but they’re only aggressive toward Fazbear staff, since they witnessed a Fazbear employee kill children. Also, I find it hard to say that the animatronics don’t understand their reality whenever there have been multiple cases of animatronics speaking proper English (Baby, Puppet, Cassidy, and Molten Freddy). Even though the animatronics in the movie are being manipulated by Afton, that doesn’t stop them from being victims. Do you really think these kids want to kill people? No, of course not, but they do what Afton says because they see him as their friend, because Afton has manipulated them into thinking that. If anything, this makes them more like victims. They haven't just been murdered and forcefully stuffed into the animatronic costumes, they were also manipulated into being a murder weapon for the same guy who killed them. It’s sad to think about, and it keeps the spirit of the games intact, since without this manipulation, the animatronics wouldn’t kill anyone.

It was a joy to see it in theaters! I went with my brother in Bonnie and Toy Chica costumes I had made and it was super fun! Hearing the Living Tombstone play at the end was a dream come true, it was the only thing I wanted from the movie. I hope they play It's Been So Long in the credits of the second movie

@@comedicidiot YES!! Seeing Mattpat was one of the highlights too. I truly didn’t think he was in it so to see him pop up and even say HIS LINE was like magic!!

@@furzyartz I KNOW RIGHT?? It was so cool

Thank you! I put way too many weeks into this video, I'm glad it could help you improve your critiques! Thinking about the qualities that makes a good movie for me is rather complicated. I basically have two mindsets when it comes to media I enjoy, the first one is my average, day to day mindset of "I'm going to the movies to have a good time, so why bother not enjoying a movie? That would be a waste of my time." As I said in the video, I like to have my fun and not have it ruined. This mindset lets me enjoy media even if from an objective standpoint, it's pretty mid or just not good at all (Sonic '06 for example, love the game, but it's VERY rough). But then there's the other mindset, the more critical mindset. I like to focus on the deeper themes of a piece of media, the characterization, the character arcs, the message. The FNAF movie, for example, is a movie about how focusing on the past ruins your present. Almost all of the problems in Mike's life can be traced back to his trauma over his brother's kidnapping. He lost his job, something he does often. Why did he lose his job? Because he mistook a father rushing his kid for a kidnapping. Why did he make that mistake? Because of his trauma over his brother getting kidnapped, not wanting that to happen to anyone else. His sister isn't getting the best care, but why? Because as Max says, he sleeps most of the time. Why does he sleep most of the time? To return to the moment of his brother's kidnapping. Mike has dedicated all of his sleeping hours, which seems to be most of his hours, to the past, to the trauma he has, and it negatively affects his life in many ways. However, at the end of the movie, Mike realizes that his sister, his present, is much more important than living in some imagined past. He wishes he could change what happened, but he can't, and he needs to move on. And then he confronts Afton, a physical representation of his trauma, his past. This is the man who kidnapped his brother, this is the man who has caused him so much pain. Defeating Afton was not just defeating Afton, it was defeating his trauma. That is what the FNAF movie is about, and it's why I love it. The mic I use is this: www.amazon.com/LILANZo-Condenser-Microphone-Streaming-Recording/dp/B09MYY77H3

the movie is more based on the books, its also the game lores family dynamics flipped seemingly, Schmidts being the emily's, the changes weren't so everyone could watch it, like the person said the changes were made to be a fnaf movie, not just about fnaf 1, also I can assure you if you jumped into a fnaf movie that started where fnaf 1 did in the game lore, you'd be confused as hell, and in the games its never shown they are losing control of themselves, they wanted to murder you in the games cause they think YOU killed them, and like the video you just watched said, they have always been children, angry souls of children who want their killer killed so they can be set free, again like the video you watched said, the animatronics have always been friendly to kids, and murderous to adults, they always have had control in that sense

The lore of the FNAF movie not lining up with the lore for the game is probably the most unreasonable and most popular complaint that people have towards it. Even before the trailers came out, as soon as a casting for Vanessa was announced, then it should have been obvious that this movie wasn't canon. As I said in the video, Vanessa exists decades after FNAF 1, so of course this wasn't gonna line up. But even besides that, Scott has set a precedent with external media. Only books are canon to the books, only games are canon to the games. This precedent was established in the Silver Eyes. This same logic can be applied to the movie, only movies are canon to the movies. It's unreasonable to have expected or even wanted a canon movie because Scott has already established that that's not how external media works. As shown in the video, Scott made multiple screenplays for the movie. One of those screenplays was the Cassidy screenplay. This screenplay actually WAS canon, it stuck perfectly to the story of the games. However, Scott didn't like this movie because it felt less like a movie and more like a visual encyclopedia. It was rewarding to fans, but it left general audiences completely lost. It wasn't a satisfying movie, which is why Scott didn't go with that screenplay. Also, the FNAF movie is probably less marketable than the games, because the movie is much more gore-filled than the games. In all 11 games, the are very few moments of explicit gore, and only one of those times isn't pixel art. The movie shows people get bit in half, get mauled, get springlocked, and get all kinds of cut up. The animatronics never appear to be losing control in the games. In FNAF 2, the animatronics are friendly toward children, unfriendly to adults, and only straight-up aggressive towards Fazbear staff. That's because they know that a Fazbear staff member killed children, they witnessed it themselves. Even as early as FNAF 2, the animatronics are shown to have some intelligence. If you look at Sister Location, the animatronics hatch a plan to escape the bunker, which involves manipulating Mike. Baby, who is possessed by a small child, speaks in full sentences. Cassidy and the Puppet are shown to similar levels of speech capability. The animatronics are not only not shown to be out of control, they're shown to have very good control. This opinion can only come from a fundamental misunderstanding of the games and what they present.

Glad to hear it! I do kinda wish I used "professional" less, because of course you're not professional, you're just a guy on KZbin wanting to share his thoughts, so of course there's a different standard. However, I do think that if someone is willing to make a video review, then they should at least hold themselves to a higher standard than they would otherwise, so I guess that was my though process in using "professional". Glad I could help you out a bit when it comes to your review process, even if I couldn't change your mind. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, so that's no biggie. Also when it comes to NWH, it's probably better to look at multiple videos. Just looking at one video saying the movie is bad is probably not the best way to develop a good analysis of the movie, since videos saying a movie is good or bad can be very one-sided, so it's best to look at many videos from both sides to get a good grasp of the movie as a whole and why people might or might not like it.

dude got put in his place after this video was uploaded. good video@@comedicidiot

@@bartledoo9 put in my place?

Rubio hop off kevin bruh

Bro saw a 30 minute breakdown of a 7 minute video and went "nah, nostalgia"💀 not to mention the movie came out a month ago, how do I have nostalgia for movie that's only a month old?

@@P5GAMEZ well yeah, but this isn't a discussion of the old games, this is a discussion of the movie, and nostalgia shouldn't play a part in this. Not to mention, Kevin mentions being a fan of classic FNAF when growing up and still looking on those games fondly, which is textbook nostalgia

@@P5GAMEZ Yeah I understand that, I'm really sorry man

@@comedicidiot nah it’s alrighr

true