I can certainly understand that. I think as mentioned before there is a certain thing people do in situations like this where they try to make out the person's work as really bad if they turn out to be awful people -- it's really difficult to be able to recognise both that someone was a terrible person, and that they may have created something of worth.
That said, in hindsight; I feel Doug's work was very amateur and pedestrian. I continued to enjoy him for so long because I was more or less a casual viewer that found him funny - coloured by my own nostalgia as it may have been - but it was hard to do that when he felt the need to chime in on topical subjects with an equally amateur and pedestrian viewpoint. The Ghostbusters review especially was hard to get through. And as said a lot of times in this thread and the previous, he simply doesn't have any actual experience or knowledge of filmmaking hence making his actual analysis sections based on his raw emotional feeling without an actual academic framework to back it up. Hence it's, uh, not very good.
