James Rolfe (AVGN) is Wavelength. What a fascinating way to look at it, bravo. I hope James sees this and understands the value of it and him. Being a pioneer does not mean you are the greatest in...
James Rolfe (AVGN) is Wavelength.
What a fascinating way to look at it, bravo.
I hope James sees this and understands the value of it and him. Being a pioneer does not mean you are the greatest in ability at what you do, and not being the best does not mean you give no value. We all have faults, pursuit of personal growth in whatever way you can is what matters. And all I have ever heard about him is that James has grown into the role of a good father and husband.
And with that small comment the internet now has a small insight into me, and the cascading effect of analyzing/interpreting art continues lol
I’ve seen a lot of content from James over the years. I do think he occasionally strikes gold. Not just in that he timed the market of content well, but he makes things that on their own stand up...
I’ve seen a lot of content from James over the years. I do think he occasionally strikes gold. Not just in that he timed the market of content well, but he makes things that on their own stand up pretty well. He has a long since completed series called Board James where he reviews board games. They start out simple and straightforward. But over time the videos transition into surrealism. It’s still very amateur. And given Dan’s analysis, which I agree with, it was certainly played by ear on James’s part. But I don’t think you make something that good without being pretty damn smart with your craft.
The failure of his magnum opus may come down to the same issues directors have in pitching to those old and detached studio executives Dan mentioned in the video. To get the money you have to play to a specific audience. In James’s case he was crowd funding a movie through his viewers. What else could he have pitched besides an AVGN movie? Clearly he has other ideas he’s thinking about. I don’t think he’d turn down the opportunity to develop them into films. But I doubt he’d get even the shoestring budget he found on Kickstarter for the AVGN Movie if he wanted to make a Board James movie, or anything else really.
After reading your thoughts, I can't help but think of other eccentric creator types. There are famous directors who are lauded for following their own tastes and making movies that they just...
After reading your thoughts, I can't help but think of other eccentric creator types. There are famous directors who are lauded for following their own tastes and making movies that they just really want to see made. But one thing that people don't tend to question is what would happen if their vision just wasn't that good, or at least unappealing to a mass audience. James Rolfe is basically the answer to that question. So is Doug Walker - another creator who Olson has covered. But just because the stuff they make is "bad" doesn't mean it's not without merit. It's still art, which is inherently valuable. The stuff they create has meaning.
I think Doug Walker has poorer taste than James Rolfe. If James were given funding, creative freedom, and a little mentorship I think he'd be doing very well with a filmography to be proud of. Not...
I think Doug Walker has poorer taste than James Rolfe. If James were given funding, creative freedom, and a little mentorship I think he'd be doing very well with a filmography to be proud of. Not one of the great Hollywood directors by any means, but I'd watch his campy horror movies. For Doug I'm not so sure.
Edit: At some point Dan takes a few shots at James for trying to maintain the joy of making movies as a kid while operating as a professional adult. I think James is 100% in the right to hold onto the joy you feel making things as a kid. You might need to sacrifice some money and growth potential to do it that way, but if you can still pay the bills and feel like a kid with a camcorder you're doing better than 99.999% of people. There are some people in Hollywood (Adam Sandler) that have made their millions and only work to have fun with their friends. I see no reason you can't skip the making millions part, drop the quality bar on the final films, and still have a decent career. James admits he isn't great with money. If he'd been able to fully capitalize on his success he probably could have a bona fide production studio cranking out low budget films.
ehhhhh.... It's subjective. I don't consider myself to be a fan of either of them, but I appreciate Doug Walker just a bit more. Rolfe in particular just kind of feels more static; like he hasn't...
ehhhhh....
It's subjective. I don't consider myself to be a fan of either of them, but I appreciate Doug Walker just a bit more. Rolfe in particular just kind of feels more static; like he hasn't really changed that much through the years other than a little mellowing out. Walker feels like he's managed to build something more substantial; the scale of his regular productions are larger and the crew he's built up do a pretty good job even if the content they produce is still cringey internet humor with less-than-enlightened intellectual take-aways. It feels like those terrible Channel Awesome specials that were so bad that Olson had to mention them in this video actually ended up doing a good thing for him because it lead to him going back to doing the stuff he's good at. I think Rolfe learned simelar lessons from the AVGN movie, but I haven't seen the improvements in quality like I have with Walker.
I think the best thing for Rolfe's craft would be if he were to try making movies with tighter collaboration with different groups of people rather than some sort of mentorship, because I think that will get his creative juices flowing. Maybe if he weren't the writer, and he had to work together with a producer. Or maybe he can step back and only produce a film - leave the acting, writing, and directing to other people. That might end up where his strongest qualities shine the most.
I don’t think either Rolfe or Walker are super interested in art. Olson even has a joke in his nostalgia critic video where he says Walker’s whole ideas can be summed up by “what if Batman met...
I don’t think either Rolfe or Walker are super interested in art. Olson even has a joke in his nostalgia critic video where he says Walker’s whole ideas can be summed up by “what if Batman met Mario.”
While Rolfe likes horror movies, he still doesn’t really broaden his taste. I would describe both Rolfe and Walker as being basic in their tastes.
I would honestly put them on the same level in terms of the content they create.
This is definitely down to personal opinion. I watched a ton from each 10+ years ago. In hindsight Walker's content seems more cringy, but Rolfe's can be cute in its own way.
This is definitely down to personal opinion. I watched a ton from each 10+ years ago. In hindsight Walker's content seems more cringy, but Rolfe's can be cute in its own way.
I'd say that's actually questioned a TON, just long before the mass audience hears about it, because some producer somewhere says "You want $20 million for WHAT?". Tentpole IP's and films help...
There are famous directors who are lauded for following their own tastes and making movies that they just really want to see made. But one thing that people don't tend to question is what would happen if their vision just wasn't that good, or at least unappealing to a mass audience
I'd say that's actually questioned a TON, just long before the mass audience hears about it, because some producer somewhere says "You want $20 million for WHAT?". Tentpole IP's and films help keep the money flowing so "visionaries" can make things like The Lighthouse or whatever.
And as for when it gets made and it's not actually good, well look at most of Coppola's work. I still haven't seen Megalopolis, but my understanding is that's another obviously choice for the pile of "oops this shouldn't have happened"
There's at least a few famous examples of this like Ed Wood or Tommy Wiseau. A lot of people would make the argument for Lucas and the prequels, but he had sky high amounts previously earned of...
what would happen if their vision just wasn't that good, or at least unappealing to a mass audience
There's at least a few famous examples of this like Ed Wood or Tommy Wiseau. A lot of people would make the argument for Lucas and the prequels, but he had sky high amounts previously earned of goodwill and "cool factor" to carry them along.
I'm not sure that you could fault your examples for lack of vision. Their films are more like a lack of talent or skill, to me. Though maybe Wiseau could be both....
I'm not sure that you could fault your examples for lack of vision. Their films are more like a lack of talent or skill, to me. Though maybe Wiseau could be both....
This was interesting because of how ordinary Rolfe is. The delusions of grandeur present in his book are pretty normal when you take into account that they were written when his brain wasn't fully...
This was interesting because of how ordinary Rolfe is. The delusions of grandeur present in his book are pretty normal when you take into account that they were written when his brain wasn't fully formed and thinking your stuff is hot shit on some level is almost mandatory if you're creative.
He's just a dude grinding his bare minimum 9-5. He seems kind but checked out as his priorities are elsewhere. And that's cool. It can even be admirable.
And that's the crux of this video. How is a man so boringly normal so interesting? Obviously he had a good idea and got lucky and found a way in front of my face in my formative years like so many others. And it's interesting how I'm still, after recognizing this, so infatuated with him. His love for B-horror, with all the knowledge he's accumulated over the years, isn't more than an elevated hobby, kinda like if you occasionally played music with your band in your company parties or something.
Dan Olson's introspective summary 'I'm not a filmmaker' was probably gratifying as a personal ephiphany but peeling a layer deeper I'd say we're all just cursed to be regular people.
James Rolfe (AVGN) is Wavelength.
What a fascinating way to look at it, bravo.
I hope James sees this and understands the value of it and him. Being a pioneer does not mean you are the greatest in ability at what you do, and not being the best does not mean you give no value. We all have faults, pursuit of personal growth in whatever way you can is what matters. And all I have ever heard about him is that James has grown into the role of a good father and husband.
And with that small comment the internet now has a small insight into me, and the cascading effect of analyzing/interpreting art continues lol
I’ve seen a lot of content from James over the years. I do think he occasionally strikes gold. Not just in that he timed the market of content well, but he makes things that on their own stand up pretty well. He has a long since completed series called Board James where he reviews board games. They start out simple and straightforward. But over time the videos transition into surrealism. It’s still very amateur. And given Dan’s analysis, which I agree with, it was certainly played by ear on James’s part. But I don’t think you make something that good without being pretty damn smart with your craft.
The failure of his magnum opus may come down to the same issues directors have in pitching to those old and detached studio executives Dan mentioned in the video. To get the money you have to play to a specific audience. In James’s case he was crowd funding a movie through his viewers. What else could he have pitched besides an AVGN movie? Clearly he has other ideas he’s thinking about. I don’t think he’d turn down the opportunity to develop them into films. But I doubt he’d get even the shoestring budget he found on Kickstarter for the AVGN Movie if he wanted to make a Board James movie, or anything else really.
After reading your thoughts, I can't help but think of other eccentric creator types. There are famous directors who are lauded for following their own tastes and making movies that they just really want to see made. But one thing that people don't tend to question is what would happen if their vision just wasn't that good, or at least unappealing to a mass audience. James Rolfe is basically the answer to that question. So is Doug Walker - another creator who Olson has covered. But just because the stuff they make is "bad" doesn't mean it's not without merit. It's still art, which is inherently valuable. The stuff they create has meaning.
I think Doug Walker has poorer taste than James Rolfe. If James were given funding, creative freedom, and a little mentorship I think he'd be doing very well with a filmography to be proud of. Not one of the great Hollywood directors by any means, but I'd watch his campy horror movies. For Doug I'm not so sure.
Edit: At some point Dan takes a few shots at James for trying to maintain the joy of making movies as a kid while operating as a professional adult. I think James is 100% in the right to hold onto the joy you feel making things as a kid. You might need to sacrifice some money and growth potential to do it that way, but if you can still pay the bills and feel like a kid with a camcorder you're doing better than 99.999% of people. There are some people in Hollywood (Adam Sandler) that have made their millions and only work to have fun with their friends. I see no reason you can't skip the making millions part, drop the quality bar on the final films, and still have a decent career. James admits he isn't great with money. If he'd been able to fully capitalize on his success he probably could have a bona fide production studio cranking out low budget films.
ehhhhh....
It's subjective. I don't consider myself to be a fan of either of them, but I appreciate Doug Walker just a bit more. Rolfe in particular just kind of feels more static; like he hasn't really changed that much through the years other than a little mellowing out. Walker feels like he's managed to build something more substantial; the scale of his regular productions are larger and the crew he's built up do a pretty good job even if the content they produce is still cringey internet humor with less-than-enlightened intellectual take-aways. It feels like those terrible Channel Awesome specials that were so bad that Olson had to mention them in this video actually ended up doing a good thing for him because it lead to him going back to doing the stuff he's good at. I think Rolfe learned simelar lessons from the AVGN movie, but I haven't seen the improvements in quality like I have with Walker.
I think the best thing for Rolfe's craft would be if he were to try making movies with tighter collaboration with different groups of people rather than some sort of mentorship, because I think that will get his creative juices flowing. Maybe if he weren't the writer, and he had to work together with a producer. Or maybe he can step back and only produce a film - leave the acting, writing, and directing to other people. That might end up where his strongest qualities shine the most.
I don’t think either Rolfe or Walker are super interested in art. Olson even has a joke in his nostalgia critic video where he says Walker’s whole ideas can be summed up by “what if Batman met Mario.”
While Rolfe likes horror movies, he still doesn’t really broaden his taste. I would describe both Rolfe and Walker as being basic in their tastes.
I would honestly put them on the same level in terms of the content they create.
This is definitely down to personal opinion. I watched a ton from each 10+ years ago. In hindsight Walker's content seems more cringy, but Rolfe's can be cute in its own way.
I'd say that's actually questioned a TON, just long before the mass audience hears about it, because some producer somewhere says "You want $20 million for WHAT?". Tentpole IP's and films help keep the money flowing so "visionaries" can make things like The Lighthouse or whatever.
And as for when it gets made and it's not actually good, well look at most of Coppola's work. I still haven't seen Megalopolis, but my understanding is that's another obviously choice for the pile of "oops this shouldn't have happened"
There's at least a few famous examples of this like Ed Wood or Tommy Wiseau. A lot of people would make the argument for Lucas and the prequels, but he had sky high amounts previously earned of goodwill and "cool factor" to carry them along.
I'm not sure that you could fault your examples for lack of vision. Their films are more like a lack of talent or skill, to me. Though maybe Wiseau could be both....
This was interesting because of how ordinary Rolfe is. The delusions of grandeur present in his book are pretty normal when you take into account that they were written when his brain wasn't fully formed and thinking your stuff is hot shit on some level is almost mandatory if you're creative.
He's just a dude grinding his bare minimum 9-5. He seems kind but checked out as his priorities are elsewhere. And that's cool. It can even be admirable.
And that's the crux of this video. How is a man so boringly normal so interesting? Obviously he had a good idea and got lucky and found a way in front of my face in my formative years like so many others. And it's interesting how I'm still, after recognizing this, so infatuated with him. His love for B-horror, with all the knowledge he's accumulated over the years, isn't more than an elevated hobby, kinda like if you occasionally played music with your band in your company parties or something.
Dan Olson's introspective summary 'I'm not a filmmaker' was probably gratifying as a personal ephiphany but peeling a layer deeper I'd say we're all just cursed to be regular people.