What if Nostalgia Critic Did The Bionicle Movies?

You all know who Nostalgia Critic is, right? If not, here’s the short version: he’s a youTube reviewer who reviews movies and TV shows from his childhood, or movies based on those IPs. He also does reviews on movies that are infamously bad, such as Food Fight and The Emoji Movie. This is his channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiH828EtgQjTyNIMH6YiOSw

So I can’t help wondering: what if Nostalgia Critic reviewed Bionicle: Mask of Light? His style consists of going through a movie’s plot and making fun of it as he goes, before coming to a conclusion at the end. I’m really wondering what his analysis of Bionicle: Mask of Light would look like.

True, there have been other YouTubers that reviewed the Bionicle movies, but most of them are long-time Bionicle fans. There is no evidence whatsoever that Nostalgia Critic was into Bionicle, so he’d be looking at the movies from an unbiased view. I’m sure that he’d make jokes about how much Bionicle jargon there is, and he might not even call the characters by their real names. He might call Takua “Hero Guy” and Vakama “Old Mentor.”

But you know what would be really funny? If he did Web of Shadows, he’d make cracks about how Roodaka might be…er, getting close to Vakama and/or Sidorak.

IHE’s done this already to Mask of Light, and he more-or-less nailed it.

Though he was technically a fan of the series before reviewing it, he came at it from the perspective of an Internet comedian reviewing terrible (or at least critically-panned) movies. His humor is exactly what you’d expect to see from a guy like Doug. Took some cracks at the canon, but not enough to thoroughly turn me off to his content coughBilliam, so it comes with my recommendation if you really want to watch something akin to your wishful thinking here.


I actually have watched it. However, I find Nostalgia Critic funnier than IHE.

I don’t know if I really want Doug Walker to make a Nostalgia Critic review of the Bionicle movies. Sure, the reviews are funny when he’s reviewing a movie that everybody hates, but when he reviews movies that he doesn’t like but other people do like… it gets a little complicated.

If someone will make a parody review of the Bionicle movies, that person should be a Bionicle fan… An outsider will know nothing about it, and all it would do is just insult the movie and the people that like that movie.
Plus, what funny jokes could you possibly make about a Bionicle movie when you know nothing about Bionicle itself?


If Nostalgia Critic is known for anything, he just states the obvious criticisms and often times doesn’t understand what exactly he’s reviewing. Would rather him not watch the BIONICLE films and review them.


Heresy of the highest order, you are now obligated to delete your account :hamburger:


Doug is a… controversial figure at the very least. Even tho I still do enjoy his content (even tho there was a time when I was this close to unsubscribe, before I realised that what he does in private doesn’t actually really affect my views on his reviews), every now and then he throws out a video that really makes waves into the pound, for the better or for the worse (And since this whole Change the Channel drama started, it mostly has been for the worse).
Now, what would I think about him reviewing the Bionicle movies? I would definitely watch it, that’s a no brainer. IHE’s review on it was pretty good, although let’s be honest: most of MoL’s criticism comes from the fact that it didn’t aged pretty well, cause it was bonkers when it came out.
I say, if Doug wants to do a Nostalgia Critic on these movies (although there are pretty small chances for him to do one; his “passions” for Lego might have been very small, smaller than the Transformers ones, that’s for sure, and to my knowledge he never made a TF review, so there’s that) let he make him. We are still living in a world where free speech is still a thing, after all, where one can review whatever he wants without being into it. I now nothing about… say My Little Pony, but oh boy! would I do a critic review on it. You don’t need to be a Bionicle fan to do a review on one of the Bionicle movies.
Plus, it wouldn’t really be the first time he trashtalks something nostalgic for me. Looking at you, Tom and Jerry and Home Alone 3 reviews.


I do hope you are joking here (then again, you’re probably semi-joking, hence the hamburger emoji).

It would show the perspective of someone who knows nothing about Bionicle. He’d make fun of how the Bionicle movies sometimes alienate non-Bionicle fans.

I don’t involve myself with the behind-the-scenes controversy, but that’s probably for the best…

Um…what? MOL aged pretty well because it was a bad kind of bonkers when it came out, or it didn’t age very well because it was a good kind of bonkers when it came out? Proper grammer would be in order here…

He actually did do reviews on Transformers; the very first review he did was of the 2007 movie. Then he reviewed the next three movies, then a non-review of TLK. But IMO, his review of the 1984 Transformers cartoon was funnier than any of those.

Yes! This is my exact point.

That might be true for some people.

Uhm… None?
I was stating two different things: 1) most of its current criticism comes from the fact that it didn’t aged well and 2) it was bonkers when it came out.

It’s not about grammar, but about a misunderstanding of my message.

Ah yes. I remember watching the “reviews” for the first two movies.
Tho those aren’t “reviews”, but him goofing around.


So you mean 100% of his content? Because he can’t give a proper review for the life of himself.


Yes he can. He talks about a movie, and states his criticisms and/or praises. Reviewing 101, right there.

1 Like

I am sorry, but I really can’t understand what was unclear in what I was saying.
I said that I remember watching the “reviews” of the first two Transformers movies, aka…

…and aka…

And then I said that those, aka said “reviews”, are not reviews, but are him goofing around.
I wasn’t referring to 100% of his content.
I wasn’t referring at… “the life of himself”. Whatever that should mean. Sorry, nonative English speaker over here.


I’m sorry, too. I didn’t realize you had that background, hence the “grammer mistake” earlier.

that background?

It’s OK I guess.

I’m not saying you did.

I’m saying he’s not a good critic whatsoever, but you may disagree. And he’s often wrong or misinformed on what he reviews. Most of what he does is goofing around or making fun of the production instead of actually critiquing it.

Yes, I do. I personally found multiple videos in which he threw valid criticism. He is more of a comedian than a critic, but this very quality made me enjoy his content even more.

Define “misinformed”.
If by this you are referring to him critiquing a movie without knowing the background about it… that’s 100% fine. You don’t need to know the context of a movie to review it. You cna go blind in and just say your thoughts before having to research and do your homework.

Again, I disagree.

Thing is, I don’t even find him that funny. He relies too much on annoying skits, physical threats, or dated references that are shoved in at frankly inappropriate times.

There’s a difference between a review and a film critique.

Film review is a giving of opinions and your general thoughts on it. This is what Nostalgia Critic does, with his references and skits. He’s a comedian first and foremost.

Then there’s a critique, which undergoes the entire process of analyzing a product’s background and the way it is produced. In this, you certainly need to know context, or you will misjudge the product you are watching. His analysis is never detailed, he only looks at the surface level of things. (His review of The Wall is horrendously guilty of this.) If you want an actual critic, look at Roger Ebert. (Or shoot, even Lindsay Ellis is a good critic, and she also does comedy. The difference is that she picks apart context and proposes fixes.)


I may be basing way too much on his older reviews, but to each their own.

There’s a huge difference between Lindsay Ellis and Doug Walker.
Ellis is indeed a top-notch critic, to the point in which my brain overheats after listening to so many big English words being thrown at me.
Doug, as you said, as I accept, as I think everybody does, is first and foremost a comedian, a reviewer who, going by your two definitions, called himself critic because it sounded appropriate for the title of his show. And that’s fine. I don’t know one single person that wouldn’t have done that.
I watch both of them for what they are and I never seriously thought Doug to be a better reviewer than Lindsay, just as I personally can’t find her funnier than him. When I watch the two I seek different opinions with different levels of accuracy and professionality, with two different kinds of humour, and in two different moods. And that’s just fine. They are two different things meant to be separate, but that I personally find good for what they are and what they are meant to be.


During a con I actually asked this exact question and he said it’s not an uncommon suggestion but obviously he hasn’t done it yet.


Oh, you met him?
That’s cool.