Seamus Gorman

> "I imagine this video's going to get called things such as toxic, ignorant, biased, maybe even unwilling to accept there are opinions other than your own... and they'd all be right"
>
>

> - EFAP 77
>
>

**Seamus Gorman** is a YouTuber who primarily makes reviews of Disney content.

His glowing praise of anything Disney (except for Cars 2, which disgusted him so much that he snapped a DVD in half), his tendency to gloss over any criticisms he can't counter, and his disdain for anyone who criticizes Disney movies he likes based on the assumption that they must be doing it for attention, paired with his collection of *Toy Story* merchandise adorning his room, has earned him the title of the **Apex Disnoid**.

His dogged defense of any media on the basis that you should just consoom it has extended beyond Disney, namely to *Game of Thrones*.

## History

### On the Undeservingness of *Game of Thrones* Fans

MauLer, Wolf, SmilerAl, and Nerdrotic first encountered Seamus on EFAP 39, where they took a look at his video titled "No, game of thrones fans...you don't deserve better" (now its changed to "**being a fan of something doesn't give you ownership of that thing...**"). Seamus began his video by explaining that his feed had been full of negative reviews of the last season of *Game of Thrones* (the gang was sad to see none of their videos made it onto the list), and he basically agreed with all of them, but he now takes issue with them because they've been going on for too long, and they need to stop, though he's made a video of his own because he wants to get some views. His overall opinion was that it was bad, and it could have been done better, but it wasn't "that bad" and doesn't deserve the verbal abuse that has been levied at it by people, that verbal abuse being saying it was the worst ending ever made, which he considers to be going too far. MauLer and co discussed the idea of a bad show with an ending technically worse than *Game of Thrones*', contrasting it against a good show like *Game of Thrones* whose bad ending hits harder because it had more to ruin.

Seamus responded to other written reviews by simply saying not to be so harsh, then questioned why people were upset by Season 8, because Season 7 was bad too. When a reviewer said they wouldn't even recommend the show to people now, Seamus countered that the other seasons can't be retroactively uined by the new one, to which MauLer responded that the ending can recontextualize earlier scenes since they were building up to that ending. He gave what he called a tutorial on how to correctly criticize the ending, where he recommended people read the books to get a different ending and hype themselves up for the upcoming spinoff shows, levying no actual criticism at the show. He was baffled by a 1.6 million-signature petition to have the ending redone by competent writers, asking if they really thought that would work, to which the answer was of course no. He informed people who were upset by the ending that they didn't own the show, to which MauLer countered the creators likewise don't own the audience's reaction to the show. He compared it to his own rule he has about not letting people tell him what to make, and he wouldn't remake a video if it was received poorly, to which MauLer and Wolf both stated that people can absolutely remake a YouTube video if they feel they got things wrong, and people often do. Seamus then conceded that *Game of Thrones* is different than a YouTube video because people pay for it and can feel their money was badly spent, but waved that point away by saying that doesn't make the show wrong, concluding "and therefore you can't claim... it should've been bette- I don't-" and then giving up on even bothering finishing his sentence. He likened this to paying to see a football/soccer game where your team loses, thus meaning you didn't enjoy it (MauLer pointed out that you can still enjoy a game where your team loses), then petitioning that the game be done over, to which MauLer had to wonder if he knew that sports are real. Al, himself a footie fan, gave the better analogy of a hypothetical team that is ranked highly and therefore cost more to watch play, even though they always lose, about which people would have a right to complain. MauLer added on the simpler analogy of paying for a football game and they're all playing basketball. Seamus conceded that he understood making the petition to make a statement, but questioned why people would make an actual petition (rather than a fake one?) if it wasn't meant to be real. Still noticeably bitter about other people not liking *The Last Jedi*, Seamus took this opportunity to take a jab at the similar petition about that film for not actually getting anything decanonized. MauLer questioned what was even the issue with holding out hope that the petition might make a difference, with Gary adding that a petition brought back *Firefly* and MauLer bringing up the *Sonic* design changing due to backlash. Seamus then argued against the realism of the petition that he himself admitted was likely just symbolic, arguing petitions like this have never worked before (they have). He then conceded that this did work with *Sonic* like MauLer mentioned, but that was different because Sonic needed to make that change to make money and *Game of Thrones* has already made its money, after having previously stated that there are more *Game of Thrones* spinoffs coming later. He wondered aloud why they would change the ending just because a few fans were disappointed, when he had previously gawked at the enormity of the 1.6 million-signature petition. He smugly suggested that the petitioners might have actually made an impact if they simply hadn't watched the finale, then immediately after said he understood why they watched it, since they were invested in it and hoping for the best.

Seamus' next point was that some people did like the ending, though he was not one of those people, and only appears that way since he sometimes defends things he feels are overhated which makes it sounds like he loves them. He put his own tweet saying "jon snow's ending was perfect / don't @ me" onscreen, seemingly indicating that he did not actually believe this. He argued that remaking the ending would insult the people who liked the original ending (even though the original ending would still exist) and that just because something wasn't popular with your fans doesn't mean you should go back to square one and remake it, to which MauLer put forth that redoing something that wasn't well-received could actually be a good practice, with Wolf adding that Fox effectively did that with the *X-Men* movies. Seamus then argued that the crew have already done a lot of hard work to finish the show and would have to do more work to remake it, seemingly unaware that doing the job a second time would mean they would get paid a second time. He added that the actors likely have other things they'd want to do, to which MauLer countered that a hypothetical remake would of course only be on the condition that all the cast want to come back, adding that he'd only use the same cast if they were redoing the last season but would likely start anew if they were redoing the whole show.

Once again feeling the need to remind people he's still bitter about others not liking *The Last Jedi*, Seamus compared people petitioning the finale (which he said was fine to do) to what happened with the *Last Jedi*. He also referenced a sexist edit of *Avengers Endgame* that he himself admitted was likely a parody since the changes it made were so absurd (like cutting out Tony meeting his dad and Thor meeting his mom). He also liked this to JK Rowling being told to stop making *Fantastic Beasts* movies so much that she left Twitter (she is still on Twitter).

He says he himself is not a hypocrite to think that people can still criticize the media this kind of over the top way, as he does it too, he even broke a DVD of Cars 2 to show how much he hated the movie in one of his video reviews.

so people are not allowed to tell the creators to not be involved with a series when their track record is bad.

### On the Perfection of *Toy Story 4*

MauLer, Rags, S̸͙̮̀o̷͖͛ǔ̴̝̿t̵̛̰͓̃ḧ̵̟ͅp̵͉̂̔a̶̲̪͑w̴̰͑̓, and Evan Monroe returned their attention to Seamus on EFAP 77, where they took a look at two of his videos "**Why Toy Story 4 Works"** and "**All Toy Story 4 Criticisms ARE WRONG**" of *Toy Story 4*, a film they were none too fond of. Seamus praised *Toy Story 4* as an amazing story, and a perfect end to Woody's story. He said the movie was different, but he was smiling throughout the film, until they took away everything he loved and murdered it... which was good. He was amazed by how the film changed up the *Toy Story* formula, to which the gang brought up that it still follows the story of Woody getting separated from the rest of the cast, there being a toy who needs rescuing, and even had Buzz revert back to his *Toy Story 1* personality. Seamus argued that this works because it didn't change Woody's core character (yes it did), who learned that being a toy isn't about sticking with one person, it's about making kids happy (then Woody left the kid he made happy). In *Toy Story 4*, as Seamus put it, we find out that he "only kinda learned his lesson," apparently not seeing the issue with that statement. He described the opening with Bo Peep (where Bo acts nothing like her prior self) as perfect, and hugely powerful.

He further praised Woody being insecure about not being played with anymore (the montage showed Bonnie was playing with him yesterday), something he seemingly got over after his journey in the previous movies. Rags pointed out that Bonnie left both Woody and Forky behind for food, so by that reasoning both toys should have left Bonnie because food is what's *really* right for her.

Seamus did say that he was disappointed by the secondary characters getting sidelined (an understatement), which brought it down a point for him since the dynamic between a "dinosaur, dog, pig and potato rubbing off each other so well" was part of what made the original perfect. Rags expanded on this by bringing up Jesse's lack of inclusion, since her personality would likely have made her more involved, and she would have better fit in the role Bo Peep had been put into. Seamus also found it odd that the little green men weren't included, since they were everywhere in the merchandising, as evidenced by his own *Toy Story* alien mug. Seamus decided that the lack of original supporting characters was okay though, since those characters arcs were complete (what was Ham's arc? Rex? Slinky?), and it was easier for them to move on since they're not as attached to Andy as Woody was, raising the question of if that applied to Buzz, since Andy was his first kid. Having previously said that the dynamic between a dinosaur, potato, pig, and slinkie dog was a reason *Toy Story* was perfect, he argued that featuring them more in this movie would have just been shoehorning, to which Rags countered that *Toy Story 4* was already the most "shoe-horny" movie in a while. He also argued that leaving out the original characters made room for newer interesting characters "interesting characters," who were all "just great."

*Toy Story* villains have always been great, with good motivations, but Gabby Gabby was different according to Seamus because rather than being a twist villain, she starts off looking like a villain but turns out not to be, making her a "twist-not-a-villain," even though she still tried to steal someone's body parts and would have murdered someone before being arbitrarily forgiven. He called this the first film in the series without a villain, since all she wanted was to be loved, even though that was also true of the previous toy villains in the series. Rags was reminded of the meme of Steven Universe forgiving Hitler because he said he was sorry, and realized that Hitler actually redeemed himself more in that meme than Gabby Gabby did since she never even apologized.

Seamus was moved to tears by Buzz and Woody parting ways with a "To infinity and beyond," even though Buzz left Woody before the conflict of the film was even dealt with, very much not going to infinity and beyond. He said the ending sent the message of film in best possible way, and Rags asked how Woody abandoning his owner after not being played with a for a few days sends the message of *Toy Story*.

#### Ascension to Apex Disnoid

> "Hating popular things doesn't make you an interesting person"
>
>

The roster then moved on to his next video, titled "All Toy Story 4 Criticisms ARE WRONG." He began by prefacing that he would likely get called toxic, biased, and unable to accept other opinions, which the gang could relate to since they too have dealt with such accusations. However, he then agreed that all those accusations are correct. He argued that *Toy Story 4* is the closest to a perfect movie you can get in this day and age. He was glad to see the above-90 Rotten Tomatoes scores, though the film still has its fair share of haters, which he chalked up to them simply hating it because it was popular.

Seamus claimed he had not seen any good or even decent criticism, only hearing that people dislike the movie, and decided to check the Rotten Tomatoes reviews to find some arguments. The first one he brought up he did not read, since it was behind a paywall (was it not worth paying $4.50 to read a negative review for a video whose goal is to debunk all negative reviews?), raising the question of why even bring it up at all. He simply interpreted the phrase "lacks spark" from the blurb on Rotten Tomatoes' preview, assuming it meant the script was bad, which he countered by saying it was actually good. MauLer countered this big-brained argument with one of his own, that it was actually good. His methodology seemed to be to only look at vague blurbs saying the movie is bad, making it easy to conclude that the movie's detractors had no points to make.

Seamus finally took a look at a full review, but by this point Rags didn't trust him to accurately convey the content of the review, and looked it up on his own. He once again skimmed through the points of the articles and said they might have a point if they gave examples to back up their claims, to which EFAP suggested that they may be trying to avoid giving spoilers since the movie is still new and they're only giving their general impression of it, and if he wants something more in-depth he should seek that out rather than be upset at Rotten Tomatoes reviews for not providing it.

Seamus disparaged the next critic for saying he didn't cry at *Toy Story 3*. Rags, once again, reading the article on his own, found out that he did say he came close to crying and was praising it for moving so many other critics to tears. He once again summed up the article as just saying the movie is bad without explanation, rather than looking for a review that had the substance he was looking for. Oddly enough, part of the article that appared onscreen in his video was blurred out.

Seamus argued that these reviews weren't "genuine" (once again raising the question of why he didn't look at "genuine" criticisms instead) because they lacked substance to back up their arguments. He acknowledged that it might be harsh to call them not genuine since reviews are an art form and there's no wrong way to do them, but he considered this to be a different case, because he spent the early days of the movie's release religiously refreshing the Rotten Tomatoes page watching individual reviews come in, and saw that it stayed at 100% for 120 reviews, but then the 121st and 122nd review were both negative, something he considered so improbable (apparently only a .096% chance, though he didn't show his math) that the only explanation was that they both just wanted the publicity of having the first negative review.

He next took a look at a review by Armond White, who he states is known for hating things just because they're popular, once again raising the question of why even look to him for a genuine review. Armond wrote, "Pixar continues to indoctrinate viewers into compulsive, childish consumerism," to which Seamus countered that of course an animated film would be childish. MauLer responded that animated does not automatically mean made for children, and made for children doesn't automatically mean "childish" - he and Rags both brought up that they wouldn't call *Wall-E* childish even though it is a children's movie. Chat pointed out that Armond had called it childish *consumerism*, not a childish film. Seamus was confused as to how the film could promote consumerism, prompting Rags to urge him to take a look around at his own room full of Disney merchandise. Armond's review read, "Fans - Pixarnoids - who don't think outside the toy chest, or even care about the development of ideas, will settle for routine, politically correct placation." EFAP were baffled by the fact that Armond had used the term "Pixarnoids" when they themselves had spent the stream saying "Disnoids, concluding that he was a prophet, as well as a spider. Seamus countered that the truth was the opposite of what Armond had said, and so MauLer similarly countered that it was actually the opposite of the opposite. Oddly enough, Seamus' takeaway from Armond recounting how criticizing *Toy Story 3* got him death threats, was that this was proof that he just wanted to be the first negative review of the film, despite this being proof that negatively reviewing the film had starkly negative consequences.

Seamus then took a look at the first negative review the film got (the one he already wrote off as being a contrarian cloutchaser), which he accused of simply retelling the plot and then saying it's bad with no reason given. Rags, naturally, had already pulled up the article, and found that it did indeed give reasons, saying the focus on just Woody doing task after task with a new cast of characters at the expense of the main cast made it feel like a tacked-on installment. He summed up the review as actually being more positive than negative, brushing off the only negative criticism as just being that the other characters were sidelined. Amusingly enough, a look at the comments on this review found a swath of Disnoids hurling things like "You dumb whore." and other abuses at him for "ruining" the 100% rating.

The last review he took a look at was from two reviewers who do audio reviews, one of whom loved it and the other did not. and that while it was entertaining it couldn't justify its existence. Upon seeing the word "entertaining," Seamus questioned how they could think it isn't good. He didn't go through the actual audio of the review, and concluded it must have actually been positive because it had the title "Charming But Worth It," apparently not noticing that "worth it" had a question mark at the end.

Finally, since Rotten Tomatoes reviews were not good enough, he took to Twitter to ask his audience to send him some criticisms on the movie. He began by showing a swarm of people telling him that the movie had no flaws, proving to him that his audience is the best, because they agree with him. One person answered that the goodbye between Woody and Buzz wasn't emotional enough, and Seamus hyperventilated in response. They also criticized Woody leaving behind Bonnie, which Seamus argued was because Bonnie was a girl and therefore would only like girls' toys, even though she liked Woody in *Toy Story 3* and even still played with him in *Toy Story 4*. Someone else argued Woody wouldn't abandon his kid, to which Seamus said he would because it's a different kid than Andy and she doesn't even like him (she does).

Seamus brought up a series of replies from another user, whose tweets Southpaw had already seen since he'd covered this same video already. Southpaw brought up how he ignored the tweets about Buzz' lack of agency, Woody giving up on a kid after three days after having previously waited for Andy for ten years, and Bo Peep's motivations being nonsensical. Instead he focused on the argument that Ducky and Bunny spend the whole movie wanting to murder people, which he brushed off by saying it's called humor. When they brought up that Gabby Gabby tried to murder Woody and steal his voicebox, Seamus condescended that that was because she was a villain, despite having previously described her as not a villain.

Finally, someone noted that Buzz making major decisions by just pressing buttons on his chest and following the voice lines didn't make sense, since in other movies he never let his voicebox overwrite his own autonomy, but Seamus considered this a nitpick, since it was only done for comic relief at first, but then agreed that the last instance (the biggest decision he makes in the entire movie) was unnecessary, but it wouldn't ruin the film for anyone.

Naturally, Seamus concluded that *Toy Story 4* is the perfect film, and everyone agrees. This conclusion, along with his methodology of only seeking out substanceless criticisms of the film, his glossing over any criticisms he couldn't counter, his disdain for anyone who disliked the movie, and his applauding of anyone who said anything celebratory of the franchise, aided by his collection of *Toy Story* merchandise adorning his room, cemented him as the **Apex Disnoid**.

## Trivia

* Seamus once paused his own video, something unprecedented for Every Frame A Pause [EFAP 39]
* He has caterpillar eyebrows.
* His videos will often use being loud and zooming into his face as a quickfire attempt to get laughs, which Wolf compared to Jeb saying "please clap."
* The most egregious flaw in his videos is that the shelf on his wall is crooked [EFAP 77]
* He is the perfect enemy for Every Frame A Pause, as every paused frame of his face is a meme face.
* He is very confident with Rotten Tomatoes Scores, but the *Toy Story 4* reviews disappointed him, because they were a 98 instead of 100. Also, he doesn't trust in RT audience reviews.
* For the most part, Seamus admits that he does not understand anything the *Toy Story 4* critics say, yet he decided to try and counter their points anyway
* His short thoughts on first *Toy Story* film is that its clever for its plot, as Woody is jealous for not being favorite, which is perfect plot for the concept of "toys coming to life".
* Commenting on him negatively is child abuse.
* Doesn't understand what a Question Mark is, as "Toy Story 4: charming, but worth it?" rings to him as a positive declarative and not questioning statement.
* He comments that the critics just say that the *Toy Story 4* is bad, but don't explain why, yet he does the same thing and doesn't see the irony of his situation.
* He might be bit of a conspiracy theorist for *Toy Story 4*, as he checked its Rotten Tomatoes score frequently when it was in theaters and concocted reasons why people would give the movie negative reviews.
* People wanted to remove Captain Marvel from *Endgame*, which is sexist to him.
* He is confused that the people didn't want the *Game of Thrones* show-runners to go work on Star Wars, since people already said that the Sequels ruined the series, so what bad would D &D do to Star Wars?
* He thinks that the statement that one had to watch something to prove that it had bad writing doesn't make sense.

## Quotes

* "Basically a tutorial how to respectful criticize, while also presenting an interesting alternate view" - EFAP 39, after giving the lightest possible criticism one could give
* "I just want one big video, it's been so long"
"It's not gonna be this one, is it? It's not gonna be a v-log saying 'guys shut up about Game of Thrones'"
- Seamus and Smiler Al, EFAP 39
* "Chat, we cannot Slownald him, because I wanna get through this video as fast as we possibly can" - Wolf, EFAP 39
* "Someone said, 'Stop his face.' What does that mean?" - Wolf, reading Chat, EFAP 39
* "Okay, fuck it, I'm playing MarioKart for the rest of the video" - Wolf, EFAP 39
* "I blame Brexit for this" - Chat, upon learning he is British, EFAP 39
* "And therefore you can't claim... it should've been bette- I don't-" - EFAP 39
* "Is he aware that... sports are real?" - MauLer, EFAP 39
* "As a way to add some flair to the video, I snapped a DVD in half"
"Madlad"
"He's crazy!"
"Somebody get this man a straitjacket, Holy Moses"
- Seamus, Al, Gary, and MauLer, EFAP 39
* "jon snow's ending was perfect / don't @ me" - Seamus, on Twitter, lying
* "The people who work on this show-"
"Are *paid*"
"-are people too"
- Seamus and Gary, EFAP 39
* "The secondary characters all kinda got sidelined a little. You know, Rex, Mr Potatohead, Slinkie, and Ham. None of them had a very big part"
"It's a bit much to say they got sidelined, that implies they were in it for a lot longer than they were"
- Seamus and MauLer, EFAP 77
* "You're... the person... that you're referring to... who's an idiot" - EFAP 77
* "It's humor... y-you laugh at it." - Seamus, on murder, EFAP 77