Vyond-styled Commentaries

Vyond-styled commentaries and approvals (aka GoAnimate-styled commentaries and approvals) make up a type of video mainly starting in the GoAnimate/Vyond community, regardless if they make videos with that animation tool or not. They first started gaining traction in 2017 onwards. This page will mostly focus on the commentaries.

Why They're VERY Trashy

 * 1) Right off the bat, they have similar problems as GoAnimate/Vyond-styled rants and salutes, along with a few extra problems that shouldn't even exist:
 * 2) * The commentator complaining about a mock name in a rant, going "was that the best mock name you could come up with?". This happens almost every single time, without fail.
 * 3) * The infamous "correction" line, where it's used in a way that's the opposite of what the rant/salute says. For example, if the rant says that a subject sucks, the commentator may go "Correction: This subject rocks!".
 * 4) * They greatly exaggerate flaws with a video and usually ignore or skip over positive parts, especially with it comes to Michael the Wrapper: Offline Guy and/or KrisAnimate's intro being plagiarised. Why is an intro copycat a big deal when literally NOTHING similar is brought to the table?
 * 5) * They recycle words, lines and quotes that are used more frequently than they should, such as "dude", "bruh", or "What does [thing] have to do with [other thing]? Can you explain why?" GA-styled rants and salutes generally explain nothing, so this question never gets answered.
 * 6) * The creators of these commentaries skipping the intro just because they really hate the video that they're going to commentate on. This can be helpful if the intro is annoying to some people, but it's quite off-putting for others, and it doesn't make any sense, as this can happen at random, even if the video is something minor or insignificant.
 * 7) * They cause a lot of arguments, backlash, and wars that could've been resolved if people didn't make rants that don't elaborate on something without following a formulaic path. Examples are in the final reason.
 * 8) * Any instance of the commentator going "what did you just say?" just to make the commentator replay that segment, sometimes in slow motion and multiple times.
 * 9) * Any "flashback" that repeats a previous scene, likely because the creator couldn't be bothered to say something different about a duplicated scenario.
 * 10) * Literally all the problems that "My reaction to/that" videos make, plus a few more just for abusing effects/volume on the clips used for them.
 * 11) * The effects/volume being abused in places, which is rather unnecessary even if a volume warning is present. GPS (Woody Memes) is known for doing this often, and sometimes, even worse, there isn't even a volume warning at all when he, or other people, do this. Instead of showing a volume warning and maxing out the volume, don't increase it at all.
 * 12) Instead of them using their user avatar or an OC, they choose a random (possibly copyrighted) character from a source that they like. This causes problems; more on this later.
 * 13) The commentaries tend to state the obvious in times that aren't necessary. For example, at the start of almost every commentary, the uploader may go "Now, I know this [video] is going to suck". GoAnimate/Vyond-styled rants and salutes automatically suck due to their formulaic pattern that almost all of them follow. Thus, the claim that's made in the commentary is pointless.
 * 14) * It doesn't help that the character that they use in the video turns angry at that point in time, either. Plus, if the video didn't suck, then the commentary wouldn't exist.
 * 15) Some of them tend to last way longer than they need to.
 * 16) * A lot of the commentators end up putting users and/or fictional characters in their commentaries to "help them out". Not only does this make the commentaries arbitrarily long, but it can also be seen as an excuse to add them in a video solely because they might've requested to do so, or because the uploader wanted to. A commentary that should've been 5 minutes gets extended to like 8 or 9 because of this; no exceptions.
 * 17) * Jordan is a notorious example of a GoAnimate-styled commentary maker, because his commentaries tend to be several hours in length. This video, used as the thumbnail for this page, is an example, and he's made several of them that are all that long.
 * 18) * The commentaries can be made on other people's commentaries. This causes the video to be ridiculously long, combined with a title that's so long that it's reduced to a visually pseudo-random string of letters and numbers, such as "TTJTCYSDNFFSCOMCOHCOHCOJCOBMCOFRROH". Good luck with figuring out what this means without clicking that acronym to go to the video.
 * 19) ** Every single time a commentary is made on another commentary on a video, the first person in that commentary chain will say to the second: "well, your commentary is going to suck [random words, if applicable] time".
 * 20) * They don't cut unnecessary parts out, even if there's nothing else to say beyond a certain point in a rant. For example, they may leave the GoAnimate logo in instead of cutting that out, or they may leave the "end of rant" voice clip in. By that point, the video would've been over.
 * 21) ** And if they do, they do it in a way to spite other people in the commentary chain, usually by skipping a word that denies a fact that a rant may make. Alternatively, they speed up or mute some parts instead of simply cutting that out, which would've been easier.
 * 22) Following #4, point 1, putting users in the commentaries is rather unnecessary not just from adding bloat to an already bloated video, but to possibly make it unfair or biased for people.
 * 23) * Some commentaries make the user/character get only one turn to speak, while everyone else gets more than one.
 * 24) * Some can contain an unnecessarily large number of users just to "help" one person out with the commentary, as if including them by default was bad enough.
 * 25) The phrase "fictional characters don't have opinions" when it comes to a rant/salute segment that adds like/hate spots with random characters. That's a lie so severe that it discourages character development and is a separate reason all by itself. If they didn't have opinions, then cartoons would've been bland when it comes to telling a story for specific characters and their roles that they play in.
 * 26) * Even though rants and salutes aren't any better, the commentators could've easily said "that opinion of the character is wrong or inaccurate", or "this character doesn't have anything to do with the rant". Or, better yet, they could've skipped that part entirely, because it's the most redundant part of a rant that serves absolutely no purpose, other than to potentially spread misinformation. An unnecessary complaint and lie, made by an unnecessary segment of a controversial video genre.
 * 27) The commentaries show major examples of hypocrisy for both their conduct and the commentaries themselves:
 * 28) * The commentators complain about Michael or Kris' intro being plagiarised, but they're fine (as in don't complain) when anything else is plagiarised, such as the entire script of someone else's rant on GoAnimate/Vyond haters, as an example. Almost all rants on haters of a subject (especially GoAnimate or Vyond), will result in the "more like" part being "[subject] fans", every time, guaranteed.
 * 29) * The "correction" line. It's used in a way that counts as disagreeing with someone's opinion, which in turn begets the act of being disrespectful to people over an opinion as well as potentially forcing theirs upon the one who made the original video. This negates their claims that they respect people's opinions.
 * 30) * The line "Now, I know this [video] is going to suck", despite the fact that these commentaries can be even worse than the rants that they're commentating on due to their lack of advice, research, and information done on subjects. Again, if the video didn't suck to the creator, the commentary wouldn't exist (which would be good).
 * 31) * Following #2 and #6, the commentators may say that fictional characters don't have opinions, yet they use them for their commentaries and even change their expressions based on the uploader's reaction to a subject/segment in a video. Very rarely, they end up roleplaying as fictional characters in the commentaries, completely contradicting what they say!
 * 32) * The scene of Peter Griffin going "Oh my god, who the hell cares" or Dr. Robotnik (Eggman) in the Sonic movie going "Nobody cares!" being used when it comes to a segment that the uploader doesn't care about, but they leave that segment in, entirely unedited, and even complain about them.
 * 33) * They complain about a mock name in a rant, yet they may make insults which are either just as bad, or even worse than the name they're complaining about. What do you expect when you make a commentary on a rant?
 * 34) * Likewise, they claim that the "failure adventures" term is getting old, but they make these commentaries and recycle other GoAnimate-styled clichés that have been used for years, without even trying to expand on them.
 * 35) * They might say that their commentary is for constructive criticism purposes only, yet they argue, harass, mock and even lie about the video or original creator that they're commentating on. This is not what constructive criticism is, and it's mainly used as an excuse for their cyberbullying act, regardless if it was their intention to do so or not.
 * 36) * They tend to be fine with GoAnimate/Vyond-styled rants and salutes being criticised, but not these commentaries, as those who hear about someone giving constructive criticism towards them and why they're bad will receive unnecessary backlash due to people being so unbelievably toxic over them. Check the last reason on this page for more information.
 * 37) * When they're repeatedly asked to stop making these commentaries due to their controversial nature, only to say that they'll continue making them because privating them would be a waste of time, when making these commentaries (and approvals) in general is a waste of time as well.
 * 38) * They may ask the question "What does [character] have to do with this rant?", yet people should be saying the same thing about the fictional characters being used in the commentaries. What do they have to do with them? We'd rather be looking at a black screen for the parts that the video isn't playing.
 * 39) * They'll skip the loud parts of commentaries, but they abuse the volume setting in places that didn't need that treatment, especially over minor things that the communities take out of context.
 * 40) * One person of a commentary chain may say that another one's commentary will suck just because they disagree with it without explaining, when in reality, all the commentaries in that chain would suck, because they are equally bad to the others, and nothing will change that.
 * 41) Most of these are made solely because an uploader may disagree with practically everything about the video they dislike. More times than not, a simple comment left in the comments section would've been more effective.
 * 42) * GoAnimate/Vyond styled rants/salutes have been the main target of these commentaries, which aren't much better, but at least they can be short, provided that multiple rants/salutes aren't in the same video.
 * 43) * If you remove the commentary parts of the commentary and leave the raw video in, then you'll eventually notice that it looks like just a disguised reupload of someone else's video with loose strings tied together. The loose strings, being the complaints, arguments, and childish insults. As proof, this reupload of Brendan's rant was taken from Jonah Campbell's commentary, edited to remove the "commentary" parts. You can tell because you can see split-second instances of Principal Skinner, which is the character used in Jonah's commentary (which is now deleted due to him deleting his entire channel; his horrible actions have sealed his fate).
 * 44) The approvals are near-identical to the commentaries, but they focus on everything positive instead of everything negative, which causes the following problems:
 * 45) * They say "agreed" very frequently.
 * 46) * They tend to be biased, usually being made just because the one who approves of the video supports the creator without even properly analysing the reasons of a rant/salute, which could be false.
 * 47) * They refuse to admit when a segment of a video is notably luckluster or bad, even when others point that out.
 * 48) They try too hard to be hip and cool, sometimes by using dead memes such as any of Filthy Frank's clips, especially with him going "it's time to stop" and "shut the fuck up, no-one cares".
 * 49) The commentaries are sort of misleading, as the word "commentary" is supposed to mean "a narrative speech towards a subject, which describes segments in detail". GoAnimate-styled commentaries usually do not do this, as they complain all the way through with recycled and biased opinions, facts, logic, and mindless rambling.
 * 50) Some of these commentaries can be so lazily done that the creator of them might have several tens of tabs opened up at once for characters and video clips, in an attempt to simulate editing one and piecing it altogether. Jay Kizer is an example of doing this, and others have used this strategy before he did.
 * 51)  They cause unnecessary controversies in the GoAnimate/Vyond community that could've been easily avoided and prevented. 
 * 52) * Brendan Barney was a victim, due to his now-privated rant on GoAnimate/Vyond haters being continually attacked by commentators, even in 2023 onwards. The rant was made in 2014, and was privated in 2020. He wouldn't have known better by then, yet he's still picked on now, along with many other things until he had left the community and retired from GoAnimate/Vyond. Great...
 * 53) * Jay Kizer had (indirectly?) sent his fans to attack MJ, the Spirit because the latter said that GoAnimate/Vyond-styled commentaries were bad, along with him saying that they're an infringement of copyright due to them being too similar to the "My reaction to/that" videos as well as the commentaries being disguised reuploads of other people's videos, only made just to complain all the way through without explaining anything worthy at all. Jay is in the wrong here, as he had no right to send hate to someone who had a different opinion, even if he disagreed with it.
 * 54) ** Jay even made a rant on MJ and accused him as a criminal under a fictional character's name because of his fans supporting the lie that MJ made or forced people to take down commentaries, when he actually didn't (effectively making them all conclusion jumpers, even Michael the Wrapper: Offline Guy).
 * 55) ** People such as Foxy the fox 110 have made excuses to keep making GoAnimate/Vyond-styled commentaries, such as "commentaries fall under fair use" and "saying that commentaries is copyright infringement is an excuse", when neither of them are good, let alone being true, and the latter can be seen as an excuse to avoid criticism against these trashy commentaries.
 * 56) ** If people moved on from the past, and if Jay never made a post going "I now detest MJ forever", which caused MJ's hate train to occur, then this reason wouldn't be on this page at all. Period. It's amazing how one person who doesn't get their way ruins the fun for everyone just to stop their demotivational issues from manifesting. Due to this, other people who say that these commentaries are bad will likely get scorned in the same way just for explaining the truth. Don't blame the person who wanted to express their opinion.

Redeeming Qualities

 * 1) Some of these can actually give valid points, but the chances of this occurring are as rare as seeing a Plotagon grounding video that doesn't use the Angry or Rage action(s).
 * 2) Some people are starting to move on from making these childish commentaries, and are upgrading to proper commentaries that feature gameplay footage instead of an image of a random character that has nothing to do with the commentary.

Examples
pMO6kaKa4QA) GDY0fo53tn4) zvY99eDgzWk) xP3ECtEWjN8) 4hM4df9e-Vc) qCzMEJ-hCw) xzkNiEBorr8) 3sNizkyzCas) 9L8Ko4X_JX8) s1If8l35zF)

Video explaining their controversies and why the videos are trashy
zCV0_bfIjoc)