The OP obviously has. That's my point here. How does he watch the video, recommend it to GAF, and not even give use so much as a summary of what the major points are? He basically just dropped a link and said watch it. Like, if I post an article as a thread I'm expected to pull a couple of quotes to give everyone an idea as to what's going on, same standard should apply with videos imo
But OP only commented on the quality of his other videos, the barebones summary of the video, and pointed out that it may be disagreeable. OP did not recommend the video, he recommended the creator. Just like when people get excited over an upcoming movie because of the cast.
H. Bomberguy presents here the idea that most works are made better if the creator is forced to cut content and runtime by 10-15%. This forces them to think about what's really important and necessary, and cut out fluff that is irrelevant or self-indulgent. He argues that bloating the length of Sherlock episodes to 90 minutes only harm rather than helps them. Sensible.
Of course, this is a bit rich coming from a guy who just created a 90-minute long video review of Sherlock. How much of what's in here is even necessary? Why is there an extended synopsis/mocking of the TV show Jekyll? H. Bomberguy seems to have a problem editing himself as well.
I would contend that the format difference is pretty significant. HBomberguy is not making a 90-minute TV show, he is making a 90-minute YouTube video. Such a video is intended for the consumption of:
1. People interested in why this video exists, and
2. People who like his content.
One of HBomberguy's quirks, which I think is actually a decent quality of his, is that he goes on tangents. It can be a problematic direction for a video, but only if it's done in a shitty way. I certainly don't think a mockery of a relevant TV show comparison is necessarily a bad thing to include. Mind you that I haven't seen the video, so I can't tell you personally what I think, just generally what I think about the idea of a very long review relative to its coverage. For instance, the Prequel Trilogy reviews from RedLetterMedia are famously long, could easily justify trimming, and are of movies that are arguably boring and could be trimmed down (there have been proposals that include trimming The Phantom Menace down to five minutes!). Yet, I would absolutely argue that the 70-minute, 90-minute, and 110-minute reviews of the prequels are of a decent length. It's all pacing breh