Not just fabricated for the views, but reactions too. For each debunking video, some will follow the actual videos to see how bad they are. But the viewer intention doesn't matter - clicks are clicks.
The one reason I still have Youtube, after getting rid of everything else Google, is the effort I out over time into getting rid of a whole bunch crappy content proposals on my attached account. Every once in a while I have to block some channels, overall it is acceptable. Once in a while I end up on Youtube without being logged in, man is it a mess. As bad as the proposals on Internet Explorers starting page I see at work.
My wife thinks it is weird that I watch so much YouTube, because when she goes to YouTube (not signed in), she is inundated with so many spammy/scammy videos. I told her it has taken me almost 15 years to curate the feed I have. And some days I have no new videos I want to watch, so I rewatch old ones.
Really? I kinda like the '[discipline X professional] reacts to [relevant movie clips]'-type videos (like 'Navy pilot reacts to new Top Gun movie'). You find them so terrible?
> I kinda like the '[discipline X professional] reacts to [relevant movie clips]'-type videos (like 'Navy pilot reacts to new Top Gun movie').
Those are exactly the ones I'm talking about
> You find them so terrible?
Yes. All noise, no signal!
If you want to watch videos about Navy pilots doing their jobs, go right ahead. Why watch Navy pilots "reacting" to a Hollywood movie?
The average Navy pilot must know as about as much about filmmaking and acting as Tom Cruise knows about actually flying a fast jet (as opposed to being filmed sitting in the back seat and not being allowed to touch anything[0]) ?
Tom Cruise is a really bad example, because he actually does have a pilot license since 1994 and is allowed to fly some jets. [0]
I'm not looking for advice on how to make a good movie (or how to fly a plane, for that matter), but on some perspective how (un)-realistic those movies are. I think overall that sort of scrutiny does some good in terms of making movies less unrealistic (compare 80's action movies like Rambo to modern productions), producers consulting not only ex-soldiers but also physicists, doctors,...
> Tom Cruise is a really bad example, because he actually does have a pilot license since 1994 and is allowed to fly some jets
Some jet ... but not the jets in the movie!
So what's the point in getting a Navy pilot to watch him "flying" them? Apart from - of course - being able to make clickbaity videos showing their "reactions".
> perspective how (un)-realistic those movies are
Erm, why? Movies are movies.
There's loads of excellent stuff to read/watch about actual fast jet flying. Far more interesting and, well, real.
> So what's the point in getting a Navy pilot to watch him "flying" them?
They don't comment on his flying but on other aspects, like the training scenes, mission tactics, and also on the flying (by professionals) that is depicted.
> Erm, why? Movies are movies.
You might feel that way, but even then you'll have to admit that a lot of people don't make that distinction to that extent (especially kids) - so they'll end up imagining they have an idea what it would be like to be in certain situations.
> Far more interesting and, well, real.
How would I know what's realistic and what's not (in areas so far outside of what I do) if I didn't rely on people with this knowledge?
> If it's realism you're after, how about listening to a professional talking about their profession?
I actually do that too, why the false dichotomy?
> Why bring Hollywood into it?
Because I've already watched the movie and now I want to know what to make of it. Claiming that it's all completely unrealistic 'because Hollywood' is a far more uninformed position than listening to an expert give a balanced account. Watching a documentary and then assuming that that gives me the required knowledge to make a realistic assessment sounds completely delusional.
And why do you care so much that the title is designed to induce clicks? Every outlet from solo influencers to NYT/WSJ-style media giants creates their online content with this mindest nowadays. It's only clickbait if the content doesn't live up to what's promised in the title.
> Because I've already watched the movie and now I want to know what to make of it. Claiming that it's all completely unrealistic 'because Hollywood' is a far more uninformed position than listening to an expert give a balanced account.
It's a action movie. It's designed to entertain you for a couple of hours. Did it entertain you? Did you enjoy it? What did you think of it? What did you like? What didn't you like?
Spoiler: You know the plot was completely made up, right?
I honestly can't understand why one would want to seek help on YouTube to know "what to make of" an entertainment experience which is an action movie with a made-up plot.
Maybe this is an age thing :( I guess I was watching action movies before the web was born.
I've seen a few videos recommended to me that are psychologist/therapist reacts. I'm pretty sure psychology and therapy without ever meeting and talking to the subject is generally considered unethical quackery.
Psychology/therapy may be a bit of an outlier in that sense, we wouldn't expect a nuclear engineer to have physically inspected a failed reactor before talking about accidents. And even they may have relevant things to say, psychology/therapy isn't only about individual diagnosis.
That's simply an appeal to authority, right in the title. I'm an programming professional and most react videos I could make about the art would be better served in another format. Not to mention it's tailored to clickbait.
Appeal to authority is a good point. In terms of clickbait, I feel that applies only when the content doesn't live up to what's promised, and I found the content quite decent in several cases.
