Everyone talks about Channel Awesome wrong

Everyone talks about Channel Awesome wrong.

But first, let’s set a baseline. What is Channel Awesome, how do we talk about it, and why do we talk about it? Well, Channel Awesome, formerly That Guy With The Glasses, was a video reviewing company and website in the late 00s and into the 10s. The “reviews” created by videomakers with Channel Awesome weren’t true media reviews. Rather, they were opinionated and comedic plot recaps which often hinged on outrageous and profanity-laden outbursts. The style was spearheaded by the Angry Video Game Nerd— real name James Rolfe—, but while Rolfe was one of the most successful in this style, Channel Awesome was founded by one of his imitators, the Nostalgia Critic— real name Doug Walker. Reviewers typically had defined characters, as well as gimmicks that they stuck to, such as the Angry Video Game Nerd talking about retro video games and the Nostalgia Critic talked about nostalgic movies from his childhood. Other critics included Linkara, who talked about comic books, Todd in the Shadows, who talked about pop music, or Film Brain, who talked about contemporary and nostalgic films. The need for a gimmick was vital to Channel Awesome-style reviewers, as the gimmick was what sold the show. The style was frequently overly similar, but the different media focus would give people their own distinct identity and media to talk about.

However, this is only the surface level of what Channel Awesome was. While the basic formula was to recap a piece of media and add new jokes and commentary on top, many such critics did more than that. Even as far back as James Rolfe, the field was full of aspiring and failed filmmakers who saw this as their vehicle to engage with filmmaking, even if in a smaller way. Skits were common, and while many of these were tied to the piece of media in question, each critic began developing their own lore and world surrounding them. This lore would continue to expand as critics collaborated on projects, such as when areas of focus overlapped. One critic’s lore would combine with another’s and often create running narratives. Most Channel Awesome critics collaborated with each other on one occasion or another, and even James Rolfe, though not a part of the website, made many appearances of his own. In just a few short years, a complex extended universe had developed, helped in no small part by the Channel Awesome anniversary movies.

The Channel Awesome anniversary movies were a trilogy of four films produced by the creators from Channel Awesome. Spearheaded by Doug Walker, these films saw the myriad critics of Channel Awesome come together for grand narratives. The production values and writing were both lacking, and these projects were clearly amateur, but for many fans, that didn’t matter, as what they cared about was seeing characters they enjoyed meet up and interact with each other more than ever before. Of course, in retrospect of the Change the Channel controversy, the way we look at these films has changed, but it should be understood that they had appeal to fans at the time.

With that baseline understood, we now need to talk about how people talk about Channel Awesome. That itself requires the context of the time, and where we are now. Channel Awesome’s height of popularity was from 2008-2012, at which point audiences began to move on, especially as new forms of video content, such as streaming and let’s plays became more popular. Channel Awesome was already falling out of focus, but then the mid-10s backlash against “cringe” things from earlier in the decade ruined them. Channel Awesome was an easy target for “cringe”.

This was for many reasons. The skit-based storylines and comedy are an easy thing to make fun of for the amateurish acting and poor effects. The jokes of these reviews, especially with how much they were based on outrage over minor slights, was easy to point to and say, “that’s cringe.” Cringe culture came hard for Channel Awesome and that has affected the way people talk about the website ever since. Doug Walker often gets the worst of it, as he isn’t as beloved as James Rolfe, who had similar antics, meaning people look back more harshly on his actions.

There’s also the simple aspect that comedy ages incredibly poorly. For every joke that becomes an intergenerational classic, many more date themselves in their time. In the way that watching any 00s comedy will have uneven results, Channel Awesome aged poorly simply because the comedy style became outdated. As the culture surrounding them moved on, the videos remained there as relics. This dated comedy is easy to make fun of as we look back and say “can you believe we found this funny?”

The matter of why people talk about Channel Awesome is highly connected to the dated comedy and cringe aspects. While the Change the Channel controversy brought about many serious thinkpieces on the website’s legacy, most people who talk about Channel Awesome a decade out from its height do so because they find it funny. They can point at dated humor and “cringe” antics and laugh at it. The anniversary movies in particular are an easy target for such ridicule. The movies are self-isolated as a single piece of media, but they are laden with in-jokes and references that make them impossible to understand to anyone who hasn’t watched the other videos that surrounded them. Simply put, people talk about Channel Awesome because they want a lolcow, and Doug Walker makes a perfect lolcow.

Before we go any further, however, we must stop to talk about Change the Channel and what that did for Channel Awesome. Change the Channel was speaking out event where dozens and dozens of Channel Awesome creators and collaborators spoke out about the abusive and harmful work environment the website created. Many people were condemned in the Not So Awesome google doc where this abuse was detailed. Many figured were mentioned negatively, but the ones who came out of it the worst were Doug Walker, his brother Rob Walker, and many involved in site management, such as Mike Michaud.

Among the allegations were things like poor communication and expectations of overwork and crunch, but also included more serious allegations like rape. These allegations left Channel Awesome fans, both past and present, in shock; moreover, many creators felt the same way, and in just a few days, all but three creators left the site, including several longtime mainstays, such as Linkara. The allegations are incredibly serious, and in light of that it’s hard to know how to talk about them. However, to make light of the situation, or to use the situation as an extension of the already existing mockery over Channel Awesome’s “cringe” is inappropriate.

So how should we talk about Channel Awesome? First of all, we need to acknowledge the gravity of the allegations against people involved, but we must also know the time to talk about it. Bringing up how Doug and Rob forced rape jokes into a script should be mentioned when we’re talking about how the two of them used their power in the company to force others into doing things they were not comfortable with. That shouldn’t be used as a joke and that shouldn’t be used as a means of reaching a punchline. Neither should these allegations be used to justify furthering the “cringe” reputation that Channel Awesome has. The criticisms of Channel Awesome behind the scenes should not affect criticisms of what is portrayed on screen— in most cases, at least. There are appropriate circumstances to bring it up, such as when talking about the uncomfortable rape jokes in the anniversary movies, which we now know the performers didn’t want to include.

Regarding of the content of Channel Awesome, it should be imperative for discussions to leave out any criticisms based on “cringe”, because that criticism is overplayed at large and just shows insincerity on the part of the critic. When talking about Channel Awesome, we should engage with what the creators were trying to make. The humor has aged poorly, but the humor itself is not inherently the problem. It can be, on occasions, but is not inherently so. The presence of things like storylines or bad effects is not worthy of condemnation in its own right, and it shows a lack of sincerity to suggest as much. The places where Channel Awesome falters are in things like the actual writing or execution, which is where the criticism should lay. There is nothing inherently wrong with the format that Channel Awesome critics used, other than that it is dated to a 2020s audience. When we talk about Doug Walker, we should talk about the issues that Doug Walker specifically has, rather than trying to state that his issues are the issues of the very medium he is in.

To end this, I want to talk about several different creators to show how the universally negative discussions of Channel Awesome are an unfair and imbalanced assessment of the website and its creators, and how many of the people involved deserve better than to be dragged down by the format that they use.

However, first I must talk about Doug Walker, who is the easiest target in discussions of Channel Awesome.

The common assessment of Doug Walker is that he is a failed filmmaker who has doomed himself to a life of working on Nostalgia Critic for the rest of his life to an ever-dwindling audience as he finds himself playing catch up with modern pop culture more and more. That’s not an unfair assessment to have, but it’s an overly simple one. Yes, Doug Walker seems unhappy with his current like, and it’s evident that the failure of his non-Nostalgia Critic projects took a toll on him, but that’s not the extent of what can be said about him.

It’s worth also talking about why Doug Walker is seen as a joke to people nowadays and why some of his contemporaries who made similar videos, namely James Rolfe, escape such criticism. The biggest factor here is simply just skill. The Angry Video Game Nerd, while crass and irreverent, still involved a lot of genuine filmmaking to it. That’s where the skits that would eventually overtake the entire culture came from. Rolfe’s character as the Nerd was also far more exaggerated and cartoonish than the Critic ever was, making clearer the line between creator and creation. For Doug Walker, the Critic always seemed to be a thin veneer between fiction and reality. The Critic can proclaim a sincere Doug Walker opinion just as easily as it can say a joke which Walker will dissociate himself from. For as much as Doug Walker likes to consider himself a filmmaker, wishes he could be a filmmaker, he’s unwilling to put himself into that role and dedicate the time needed. The forced weekly schedule, in comparison to James Rolfe’s “whenever it’s done” release schedule for the Angry Video Game Nerd means that time can never be spent on videos to a proper degree.

The biggest gulf between Doug Walker and his contemporaries is his lack of quality in his work, but what makes him so infamous is the degree to which he is the figurehead for the entire movement. If Doug Walker were just another creator, were just one part of a larger movement, he would be forgotten, but instead, he was the man that Channel Awesome was built around. He was the titular That Guy With The Glasses. He was popular because his videos aligned with comedic values of the time, but that made him the center of things, and now, years later, a vortex. To talk about Channel Awesome is to talk about Doug Walker, because Doug Walker and Channel Awesome have made it so. In the grand extended universe of the critic narratives, Doug Walker is the main character— at times, literal Doug Walker himself, distinguished from the Critic. Doug Walker is clearly egotistical with none of the talent needed to back it up, and that has had a knock-on effect that resonates through the rest of the culture. When the final anniversary movie ended by killing the Critic and proclaiming the end to the “age of reviewers”, it left audiences and performers alike unsure of what the future of the site would be. Doug Walker had so thoroughly tied himself to the identity of the website and culture that the death of his character was the death of the movement. Nevermind the other people on the website who still worked there and would continue releasing videos after the movie was done.

Doug Walker is contemptable. Dough Walker is a selfish and egotistical man with none of the talent to back it up. If he has the opportunity, he will suck up all the air in the room just beccause he can. However, the way people talk about him is frustrating because despite the many criticisms to be had, few people talk about him in appropriate ways. See Kyle Kallgren’s “Nostalgia Critique” and Dan Olson’s review of Nostalgia Critic’s The Wall for other more balanced criticisms.

Let’s talk about someone better, shall we?

Doug Walker is a dinosaur in the modern day, but he is not the only one of his kind. Just as much as he is unchanged in his formula, Linkara too remains unchanged. However, where Doug Walker is contemptable, loathsome, Linkara is respectable, and for once clear reason: he is sincere. Doug Walker continues to make Nostalgia Critic because nothing else will pay his bills. Linkara continues to make his show because he enjoyes what he does. Linkara’s presentation has changed remarkably little in the time since he started making videos. His videos still include a theme song, still include ongoing storylines. He even self-produced a movie which, by all reports, was produced in an infinitely better way than any of the Channel Awesome movies.

Linkara, according to everything I’ve seen, seems to be a good person. He has politically correct opinions, he’s supportive of causes I agree with, and so on and so forth. When the Change the Channel controversy first broke, he not only spoke up in favor of the people in the document, but was among the first to leave Channel Awesome in the ensuing exodus. His departure was major for the site, because he had always been one of the most popular and successful creators. The gulf between first and second place was wide, but his entire career had still been spent in the top three. And yet, he left Channel Awesome. It likely wasn’t a difficult choice, since he had been financially stable on his own for years by that point, but all the same, it’s a moral gesture.

Linkara frequently gets the same criticisms of “cringe” that Doug Walker does. In many ways, he invites them more than Doug. His storylines were always more ostentacious, more elaborate. His lore reflected his background as a comic book reviewer. But in reflecting that background, he grants his storylines much more sincerity. His writing can be lacking and his effects are subpar, but his influences are direct. His show reflects an ethos found in a noted influence for him, Mystery Science Theater 3000. It reflects comic books and the other media he likes, yet is still transformative enough to avoid falling into the basic pop culture references that Doug Walker is limited to. Where Doug Walker can only regurgitate, Linkara can at least iterate. I have infinitely more respect for Linkara than I do for Doug Walker because Linkara seems to be someone who enjoyes what he does in life. He seems to have found a niche which is creatively satisfying and capable of sustaining him. Even when his format remains unchanged for a decade or more, it doesn’t need to be an issue. After all, people still watch him. If there isn’t anything wrong with what he’s doing, then there doesn’t need to be any kind of change. What Doug Walker is doing is broken, and requires fixing, but the same shouldn’t be said for Linkara.

There are some former Channel Awesome personalities I still watch, however, and they can serve as an inheriting examination in how one innovates from the original formula. Each of these cretors were and remain good.

Todd in the Shadows is someone who has proved his ability in self-improvement. His videos started as a heavily gimmicked reskin of his contemporaries. His character was that he always hid in shadows, and instead of reviewing films, he talked about current pop music. These worked at the time, but as time wore on, the pop reviews began to drag on him. So, he changed his style, and began covering one hit wonder artists. That would prove to be his best path forward, and that focus on music history would only continue to expand in time.

Todd was as much a Channel Awesome critic as one could be. He appeared in the anniversary movies and had his own storylines which developed out of constant collaberation with his contemporary creators. He never changed abruptly from that ethos, but instead let himself change over time. As the content of his videos began to change, so did his style, and now in the 2020s, most of his videos are barely related to what he made a decade before. This is a normal path for an artist to make, and it has certainly been to his benefit.

But while Todd was a Channel Awesome critic through and through, Brows Held High— real name Kyle Kallgren— always felt like an odd fit for the website. He was clearly a film major and his videos reflected that. He talked about more arthouse films, as much as he could within the bounds of Channel Awesome, and it always felt like he was straining against the formula. His presence in storylines was strained. He was not someone who should have been a part of Channel Awesome, and yet he was.

And in the time since he left Channel Awesome, he has not spoken favorably. He has condemned both the normal and female equivalent Nostalgia Critics and has focused further and further on arthouse media in his videos, as well as going deeper in his critique and social focus. Where in 2011 he struggled to make his videos fit the Channel Awesome formula, in the 2020s, he flourishes from the freedom to be his own creator.

Finally, Folding Ideas— real name Dan Olson— was never truly a Channel Awesome critic, and yet his start is closely tied to it. He started as a highly gimmicked media reviewer on the website, although certainly on the more serious side, but this was well into the website’s dying days. He wouldn’t be long for the website, and soon enough he left in a GamerGate-related controversy. He continued making videos like he had, changing slightly in a way that Todd had, while also being able to be more himself in much the way that Kyle Kallgren had. But Dan Olson was never truly a Channel Awesome critic, and while that’s part of his legacy, his inclusion here also serves to show what the concept of Channel Awesome can be, a flimsy grouping of similar creators from an era in which youtube was not yet the dominant platform for longform video content.

We remember Channel Awesome because from it came a high number of high-profile video creators, but the way we remember it is not a crystalized representation of the era. Instead, the way we view Channel Awesome is tainted by post-GamerGate “cringe” and dated humor, tainted by controversy which irrevocably changes the way we look at certain individuals. But the way that these things have dominated conversations about Channel Awesome has left little room for other discussions. Other creators are forgotten, anything else that can be said cast aside. The broad topic of Channel Awesome, such as what we can take away from it, what we can say about it, what of the creators who originates there, it all gets brushed aside as people point and laugh at Doug Walker. This doesn’t need to be the only way of talking about the website, and in fact, the legacy of Channel Awesome might stand better if people other than Doug Walker were remembered more. For all the controversy that has happened, the people in the Not So Awesome document were still members of the site, still cared what they were doing. Laughing about Doug Walker while ignoring anyone else casts such people aside except when it’s convenient to use them as another tool to attack their lolcow.

If you liked this essay, please consider checking out my Patreon.