Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
AtticTelephone

Will TV ever be the same after the rise of the internet?

Will TV ever be the same after the rise of the internet?  

64 members have voted

  1. 1. Will TV ever be the same?

    • Yes
      7
    • No
      57


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, ReaperAA said:

And What have they done to PPG!!!? That's my childhood there!!!

 

Yeah, stuff is real bad...

 

But at least they uh, kinda survived the TTG treatment that Ben 10 received, if you can call this a good thing, that is.

 

Miss those days...

 

Spoiler

05dea87f1b3832bde816536b31822ec7054c0719

 

I may be nostalgic right now, but those were objectively better times for CN than what it's going on right now, and as I said, it looks like Boomerang is next.

 

Well, at least we can still find the series on various sites... I'd honestly love to see CN embrace streaming and bring back all their former cartoons, but that requires effort, which doesn't seem to be what the current heads are willing to do.

Share this post


Link to post

I hate this quote system I have no idea how to use it. Anyway for the purposes of my post I am quoting @seed

 

You guys waxing nostalgic over cartoons I was too old to get into makes me feel old :P

 

Quote

I still remember the early-to-mid 2000s where it was actually worth my time when they aired actually good cartoons

 

yeah no.

 

Quote

Adventure Time, Regular Show, Steven Universe, and a few others,

 

uggghhhh

 

You kids need to get off my lawn and watch 90s cartoons, those were much better. Or 90s-00s anime, when anime wasn't and endless cycle of trash. :P

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, seed said:

Damn, I'm only now noticing this part of your post.

 

Good fucking grief man, what an absolute shitshow CN has turned into... I

As a rule of thumb, I find that the best cartoons are those with realistically drawn humans. Going that route means that as a writer you can't just be lazy and apply slapstick all the way, you also need to make the humor more realistic. Sure there are exceptions of toony cartoons which are still fun to watch and pretty smartly written IMO (Regular Show and Adventure Time), but otherwise I tend to see a pattern/template appearing more and more often in toons now. See the identical face patterns of kids from that toon with the crystal women and boy with similar abilities, or Star vs the Forces of Evil... 

 

However, I admit I might be growing up lately :( I tried watching some Generator Rex episodes (i.e. realistically drawn humans and epic story of doomsday pandemic proportions) but was put off by some obvious teenager jokes. I still have fun watching Scooby Doo though... 

Share this post


Link to post

I doubt internet will be the same either once all human consciousnesses merge into an eternal, abstracted being. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, printz said:

As a rule of thumb, I find that the best cartoons are those with realistically drawn humans. Going that route means that as a writer you can't just be lazy and apply slapstick all the way, you also need to make the humor more realistic. Sure there are exceptions of toony cartoons which are still fun to watch and pretty smartly written IMO (Regular Show and Adventure Time), but otherwise I tend to see a pattern/template appearing more and more often in toons now. See the identical face patterns of kids from that toon with the crystal women and boy with similar abilities, or Star vs the Forces of Evil... 

 

However, I admit I might be growing up lately :( I tried watching some Generator Rex episodes (i.e. realistically drawn humans and epic story of doomsday pandemic proportions) but was put off by some obvious teenager jokes. I still have fun watching Scooby Doo though... 

 

Heh, reminds me of the older cartoons, damn there were so many adult jokes in there I completely missed as a kid. It wasn't until I rewatched some stuff a few years ago when it dawned on me just how good they actually were. There's plenty of stuff I didn't understand at the time, but do now, and that makes them even better.

 

It all comes to writing and of course art direction in my book, I can like without the latter to an extent but can't without the former at all, if it isn't at least okay. I've seen good cartoons, and I've seen abysmal ones too. Generator Rex is one I've actually liked, it's just too bad it ended prematurely, and the final episodes have also not aired on TV to my knowledge.

 

14 minutes ago, hybridial said:

I hate this quote system I have no idea how to use it. Anyway for the purposes of my post I am quoting @seed

 

You guys waxing nostalgic over cartoons I was too old to get into makes me feel old :P

 

Well you do sound like a grumpy 80yrs old sometimes, not gonna lie.

 

You seem to be attached a bit too much to your time period and have kinda fallen into the "everything was better in my days, now all is trash". Preferences and opinions I guess.

 

14 minutes ago, hybridial said:

yeah no.

 

ok.

Share this post


Link to post

I watch a fair amount of TV, but virtually none of it in real time*, which I suppose screws up any ad-supported model. I don't watch on-demand content that includes unskippable ads. Even if I know it will be available on demand, I'll DVR it instead. If somehow they make it impossible to watch certain things without sitting through ads, then I'll do without that content.

 

If for some reason I want to experience the misery of watching a Vikings game, I'll start about an hour in so that by the time the game is ending and the Vikings have blown their lead and are suddenly behind in the dying minutes, I'll be caught up just in time to see them fail to force overtime. (Yes, lived in MN long enough now to know this script.) But at least I will have skipped the MyFuckingPillow and other ads.

 

* If I see that there is some big developing news story, I tend to watch a news channel live until they start looping the same footage and repeating the same comments because there is no new information coming in. (So normally about 20 minutes.) I'll sometimes turn CNN on at 5pm just to see poor old Wolf Blitzer pretending that something that happened yesterday is still breaking news while being drowned out by THIS IS CNN BREAKING NEWS!!!111.

Share this post


Link to post

@seedNah, Adventure Time and Steven Universe are pure shit :P

 

but I will say this. And this is now a topic about cartoon art (just for this post)

 

Stuff like that to me is low effort in terms of the visuals, and when you were used to animation typically being way more detailed and way more dynamic, it's basically impossible not to see stuff like the mentioned above as a massive downgrade. I really do think they're cheap and lame in those terms. Not to mention the tone of stuff like that lacks any kind of earnestness, which to me is almost all the fun in anything really. 

 

I mean, if I were to name some stuff from back then that I thought was great, as in great then, and would still hold up now, I would say something like Gargoyles.

 

But when I think of the appeal of stuff from back then, it's because of the real effort put in to sell the schlock. Most of it was to sell toys, but they had fun making these you can tell. 

 

Spoiler

 

It wasn't just Doom, the 90s were just seriously like that XD

 

 

Mummies Alive was the last one I really remember watching on Saturday mornings. Kind of at the tailend I think before everything changed. This show was a bit more comedic and tongue in cheek but not in a way that pisses me off like the stuff that tended to come later. 

 

 

That jet, those metal riffs, and fucking Kaiju monsters (at least in some episodes). This was the coolest thing ever. Well, until I saw Devilman. 

 

I wouldn't say back then these shows weren't often silly, but they had production values, they had a sense of fun, and they had people who could actually do art working on them. And I like the earnestness, the more whimsical approach of later cartoons pissed me off, when I was talked into watching any of them. The one thing I'm sure of is I wouldn't have liked them any more had they been made at an earlier time, but there definitely was a stylistic change around 2000, and stuff with genuinely ambitious animation just completely died out on TV, and it wasn't long before 3D CG killed 2d animation in movies (to the detriment of the human race I think). 

 

As for TV itself, if its dead I didn't even notice.

 

* I do want to add, yes Avatar the Last Airbender was an example of a great cartoon in basically every way, and that was the early 00s. And yeah that show was of a calibre rarely ever seen. If it was more like what most cartoons were like around that time, it'd be an embarrasment of riches. Unfortunately, they weren't.

 

And I couldn't even make it to the end of Korra season 1 :p 

Edited by hybridial

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, hybridial said:

Stuff like that to me is low effort in terms of the visuals, and when you were used to animation typically being way more detailed and way more dynamic, it's basically impossible not to see stuff like the mentioned above as a massive downgrade. I really do think they're cheap and lame in those terms. Not to mention the tone of stuff like that lacks any kind of earnestness, which to me is almost all the fun in anything really. 

 

Relatable, I see where you're coming from here, old cartoons were for some reason just so much more detailed in some cases, thinking of the classic X-Men here, the amount of detail everything had was insane.

 

But it wasn't all good either, although the style and detail may have taken a hit since, the fluidity definitely did not, these old cartoons weren't so smooth and almost looked clunky at times. I can see why this can now be perceived as such though, because the SU style had indeed been copied by others, making the work look less distinct, but otherwise, if the stuff is good enough or has what I'm looking for, I can easily overlook it.

 

The writing is also different from what was back then, so I don't even think there's much point in comparing this, and well written stuff still exists, it's just harder to find. Besides, making animation back then was also much harder and everything was hand drawn, hence the production value you've mentioned, which I agree with and it definitely contributed to the overall quality ultimately, as no-one who wants to make trash or "just do" something would've gotten too far back then, but to my knowledge the process is a lot easier now, hence the lots of effortless content.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, seed said:

But it wasn't all good either, although the style and detail may have taken a hit since, the fluidity definitely did not, these old cartoons weren't so smooth and almost looked clunky at times.

 

I acknowledge this but given my preferences and the fact my favourite animation ever is horribly unfluid much of the time due to an obviously limited budget, I'll take animation comprised of drawings I find interesting over smoothly moving coloured stick figures any day of the week, and I don't even think I'm exaggerating much saying that talking about Adventure Time et al. 

 

Plus, on top I don't feel those shows even do many dynamic action scenes anyway, so the smoother animation might be there but what is even achieved with it? Nothing terribly ambitious really. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hybridial said:

@seedNah, Adventure Time and Steven Universe are pure shit :P

 

but I will say this. And this is now a topic about cartoon art (just for this post)

 

Stuff like that to me is low effort in terms of the visuals, and when you were used to animation typically being way more detailed and way more dynamic, it's basically impossible not to see stuff like the mentioned above as a massive downgrade.

You ought to stop confusing low effort with art direction that you don't like. Whereas older animations obviously look more detailed, they were often done with more traditional forms of animation, animation that was (and is) more time consuming to create. (Water colouring, cel animation, to name something)

 

Animations like Adventure Time (or Family Guy/South Park) are done in 3D, thus with polygons, and in full 3D scenes. The benefits: Far faster iteration time, something that South Park in particular needs as it often reacts to current-day events. Minuses: Detail loss. Its why a lot of these syndicated animations often take on cartoony art styles. Even something more elaborate in design, like Archer, which does a lot of compositing, still has its roots firmly in the cartoony flat style that is popular now.

 

41 minutes ago, seed said:

 

Relatable, I see where you're coming from here, old cartoons were for some reason just so much more detailed in some cases, thinking of the classic X-Men here, the amount of detail everything had was insane.

Biker Mice From Mars.

 

Thank me later.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

You ought to stop confusing low effort with art direction that you don't like.

 

As you outright admit yourself, it's low effort shit designed to be made quickly. And I have absolutely no interest in arguing with you because even your defence on this is weak and I think you damn well know it. 

 

Things are the way they are broadly because of the market, but that doesn't mean it's not bad. It's very bad. Traditional animation to me was a very great art form and its been killed off for cheaply made dross. I mean, you say that in so many words only you pretend to defend it even though your defence is as damning as almost anything I've said.  I have a right to fucking hate it and think your being completely full of shit and I am taking that position here :P

 

I don't say that to be mean, I say that to be clear, on what my position is. 

 

It's not art direction, its artless direction. :D

 

Biker Mice from Mars was pretty fun though. 

Edited by hybridial

Share this post


Link to post

No. With the way things are going with pretty much every major TV network releasing their own streaming services, we'll probably see regular broadcast TV being relegated to showing 24 hour news and local news, live sports and concerts and public access TV. If internet access is designated as a right instead of a utility, we'll see that path being accelerated exponentially.

Share this post


Link to post

hollywood et.al. is fighting a losing battle because they are stuck in the past where region locks and other nonsense was a good idea at the time

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, hybridial said:

 

As you outright admit yourself, it's low effort shit designed to be made quickly.

Faster iteration time =/Low effort. They aren't the same thing, much less so that they are shit.

 

Current animation is simply a 3D package. That still means you need to rig characters, animate them, keyframe them, sync them to audio tracks, light them, shade them. That all is not low effort but simply a different workflow to, in this case, digital animation.

 

But if knowing the differences between the kinds of animation at play and the efforts at hand is a weak defence feel free to prove otherwise. Saying things are low effort shit is not proving anything.

30 minutes ago, hybridial said:

Things are the way they are broadly because of the market, but that doesn't mean it's not bad. It's very bad. Traditional animation to me was a very great art form and its been killed off for cheaply made dross.

Studio Ghibli, one of the finest (imo) practicioners of traditional animation, also use digital animation for certain VFX shots. But:

  • It is done to improve iteration times for VFX shots where it respects the source art style is easier to implement versus done traditionally
  • It is used sparsingly

Syndicated animation (as in South Park, which used to rely on paper and cut animation) has to be quicker in order to respond to real life events. Which is why something like South Park also has clunky animation - The very first episodes had that to save on time, and it became a staple feature of the series, even after they made the move to full digital animation.

30 minutes ago, hybridial said:

 

I mean, you say that in so many words only you pretend to defend it even though your defence is as damning as almost anything I've said.  I have a right to fucking hate it and think your being completely full of shit and I am taking that position here :P

 

I don't say that to be mean, I say that to be clear, on what my position is. 

Using strong words to iterate your position does not strengthen it in the slightest. If anything it highlights a recurring theme - You don't like a lot of things. Hate is also a strong word to use to flag something you do not like. But when requested for explanation, all you do is this so far:

  • Its low effort shit.
  • You are completely full of shit.
  • I have a right to fucking hate it.

That is overly aggressive for no point being. You can make yourself perfectly clear without using extremes to carry whatever your point is across.

 

The same goes for art direction. You jokingly, mockingly so call it artless, that does not mean it actually is artless. There is art direction and storyboards involved, but you simply do not want to accept that this is the case because, in your eyes, it looks low effort.

Share this post


Link to post

90's - early 00's Nickelodeon > All other cartoon channels from any era

 

In Chile local TV seems to be doing alright still. Cable TV is not worth it. The movie channels are pretty much Adam Sandler movies every day unless you subscribe to premium stuff. Sometimes two channels are running the same Adam Sandler movie at the same time. Personally I stick to YouTube and Netflix (family shared account). If something's not there so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

The same goes for art direction. You jokingly, mockingly so call it artless, that does not mean it actually is artless. There is art direction and storyboards involved, but you simply do not want to accept that this is the case because, in your eyes, it looks low effort.

 

I put to you that you have given no proof whatsoever that it in fact involves any artistic effort, other than describing the mechanical process rather than making any comment at all on the aesthetic nature of the techniques which to me is the problem. The end result of these techniques is so dull, lifeless and basic to anyone who wants real artistic stimulation in terms of visuals. 

 

It does support my theory that you are in fact some extremely sophisticated bot, that only understands the technical aspect of things and absolutely no understanding of what feeling a passion for something and conversely feeling distaste for anything, because that would involve a complex grasp of emotions you haven't quite reached yet. 

 

Spoiler

I'm kidding.

 

 

Really what this comes down to is aesthetics. I can acknowledge that I just dislike the aeshetics because to me there is a distinct lack of desire to really push any boundaries. Do these guys work? Sure, they do. But they crank a lot of this stuff out like its coming out of a factory and not really depicting the kind of wild concepts that used to be common in animation or displaying the ambition to make something that looks outright impressive. 

 

So I'd ask you, what do you think is legitimately impressive work that pushes the envelope in recent years in terms of aesthetics in 2D animation (allowing for the use of 3D within, but it counts if generally speaking, most of the work is traditional)

 

I feel like this would be the most recent example for me and it was still over 10 years ago:

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hybridial said:

I put to you that you have given no proof whatsoever that it in fact involves any artistic effort, other than describing the mechanical process rather than making any comment at all on the aesthetic nature of the techniques which to me is the problem.

Oh, i have to point out proof when you called it low effort shit in the first place? By all means, i'd be willing to - But you go first.

 

The aesthetic nature of the techniques - You mean, the techniques/software employed to craft the look of those syndicated cartoon shows, or just the artstyle itself?

Quote

The end result of these techniques is so dull, lifeless and basic to anyone who wants real artistic stimulation in terms of visuals. 

Matter of opinion. How would you rank South Park's animation, both original and how it is done today?

Quote

 

It does support my theory that you are in fact some extremely sophisticated bot, that only understands the technical aspect of things and absolutely no understanding of what feeling a passion for something and conversely feeling distaste for anything, because that would involve a complex grasp of emotions you haven't quite reached yet. 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I'm kidding.

Hiding yourself behind ''I am just kidding'' does not change that, in fact, you are quite insultive with this. I perfectly understand where you are coming from, but you seem to think that everything that one can dislike has to be said so with hyperbole. That you dislike how current animation like Adventure Time looks like is one thing. (I don't find the animation that great either, or refined). But that's something fully different from saying: ''Its low effort shit.''.

 

Quote

 

Really what this comes down to is aesthetics. I can acknowledge that I just dislike the aeshetics because to me there is a distinct lack of desire to really push any boundaries. Do these guys work? Sure, they do. But they crank a lot of this stuff out like its coming out of a factory and not really depicting the kind of wild concepts that used to be common in animation or displaying the ambition to make something that looks outright impressive. 

For all these acknowledgements you are sure easy to judge other people's work with other wild claims. Do you consider that a fair assessment? What if your skills were weighed equally the same? Would that be fair, or simply unjust because you, like the people/developers/games you criticize, also have redeemable qualities?

Quote

So I'd ask you, what do you think is legitimately impressive work that pushes the envelope in recent years in terms of aesthetics in 2D animation (allowing for the use of 3D within, but it counts if generally speaking, most of the work is traditional)

Guilty Gear XRD is pretty impressive stuff to me, or Dragonball Fighter Z. Its practically animation, except its done in a game engine (Unreal Engine 3).

 

As for movies, most Studio Ghibli films (Arrietty, When Marnie Was There), The Red Turtle and Modest Heroes.

Quote

I feel like this would be the most recent example for me and it was still over 10 years ago:

Looks like something id love to watch. And looks good. Thanks for the heads up :)

Edited by Redneckerz

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hybridial said:

Nah, Adventure Time and Steven Universe are pure shit :P

Stuff like that to me is low effort in terms of the visuals, and when you were used to animation typically being way more detailed and way more dynamic

I don't like it therefore it's lazy

 

This is the same mentality of people who think the 8-bit/16-bit art style is "Lazy Pixel art"

3 hours ago, hybridial said:

basically impossible not to see stuff like the mentioned above as a massive downgrade.

 

how can anyone consider something i don't like good?

 

3 hours ago, hybridial said:

 they crank a lot of this stuff out like its coming out of a factory and not really depicting the kind of wild concepts that used to be common in animation or displaying the ambition to make something that looks outright impressive. 

its not real music until they use 1000 time signatures and 200 chords

 

That's pretty much the musical equivalent of those who think art is a sport.

 

pro tip: you not liking somthing =/= objectively bad

Share this post


Link to post

almost no one i know actually watches TV anymore, they all stream and watch stuff online,(myself included) i just think there's more quality content on Streaming services and online then on public broadcasting.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Redneckerz said:

For all these acknowledgements you are sure easy to judge other people's work with other wild claims. Do you consider that a fair assessment? 

 

I have less drawing skill than the average rock. But Adventure Time looks like something I could replicate. I am not wowed by something of a technical level I could replicate because such a thing is to me, too simple to have any appeal whatsoever. And that's where I say its low effort, maybe other people had to work hard but I don't think the artists or the designers had to at all based on what was being presented to me, and really outside of the writing (the most important thing to any endeavour around crafting and communicating some form of story) I consider that the biggest appeal of a piece of animation.

 

Also @jazzmaster9 that's my response to you as well. Along with "Just because you like something =/= good." 

 

South Park is a little different, I'm not nor ever really was a fan of the show but I guess its style involves more physical craft originally, which I can appreciate. I guess it's done on computers now? I haven't watched the show in over a decade so I don't know about that. 

 

Also it says a lot @Redneckerz that you felt a need to name videogames that are in fact completely 3D but displayed on a 2D plane. I don't consider them an example of what I was asking for, because, my whole issue is a lack of specific examples anyone could properly bring up of predominantly 2D traditional animation. The Ghibli examples are solid, although Arriety was a while ago at this point (and also the one that was based on a book I was very familiar with growing up so that was interesting in particular for that). They do produce mostly quality work compared to everyone else. 

 

Also, fine, rather than make a joke I'll just say it point blank but, I do think you always come at things from a very pragmatic perspective, but just because something's pragmatic, it doesn't mean it's artistically good. Do you have anything to say in response when I say Adventure Time is crude and basically drawn and is simply not very impressive when stacked up against something that clearly had much more effort put into the visuals? I find it weak. Maybe that's a more accurate or better criticism than its shit, because it's a more accurate statement of what I see in it. They had no real ambition, and I find the simplicity of it to have no artistic appeal at all. And no I didn't like the show in general either, tonally its not what I like in the slightest, but that's perhaps a separate thing.  

 

 

Edited by hybridial

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, hybridial said:

Also @jazzmaster9 that's my response to you as well. Along with "Just because you like something =/= good." 

It's not even about about good and bad, because that's something that is completely subjective..

 

i love how your response was simply no u, Hilarious.

 

14 minutes ago, hybridial said:

They had no real ambition, and I find the simplicity of it to have no artistic appeal at all. 

Imagine thinking that being cool and different is the end all be all of entertainment medium.

Also imagine thinking to be the only true authority in what is artistically appealing or not.

art is not a sport.

 

Edited by jazzmaster9

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, jazzmaster9 said:

i love how your response was simply no u, Hillarious

 

A completely valid response given the context, however. I've given my reason, I don't really care why anyone likes it. But I am declaring the artists did it in a crude simplistic style that I think is weak and low effort design work, and I will never be persuaded otherwise.

 

And I am fine with the discussion ending here because there's nothing anybody could say to change my mind. I really should have just said upfront this argument is nothing more than a waste of time because that's all it is, and this subject is one I'm too set in my ways, and yeah I shouldn't have really brought it up, or at the very least not continued with it. 

 

I'm probably being unfair, I'm probably wrong, but I don't care. I hate Adventure Time, I hate that style common to stuff like that and Steven Universe, I miss what animation was and I feel its just too rare to see anything that makes me feel like "that's really cool".

 

And at least it was fair to say that in the past, cartoons did have those higher production values and detail and I loved that and I really miss it. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

 

I use YT for one thing only: Listening to music because some people maintain playlists of stuff I don't know yet. But it always goes so that once I know which songs I like I either buy them as downloads, or if that's not possible (e.g. a band only releases in their native country) get it from a bit more ... eh ... questionable ... sources.

I rarely listen to the same thing on YT multiple times and the ad infestation over there has become nearly as bad - if not even worse - than broadcast TV.

 

Same here - years ago I was looking for Kazdurol - Merciless Insanity having heard it on the Tommy Vance show on BBC radio in the 90s; I realised a lot of people are (ahem) "reposting" old classic metal to YT. I found it, but in the meantime realised there was a HUGE reservoir of good heavy metal and rock out there on YT, both stuff I hadn't heard before, new stuff, especially retro thrash, plus things I didn't like in my youth that I am OK with now.

 

I'm 55 now and could live to 105 without exhausting YT's seemingly inexhaustible supply of metal :D In fact, some of this I like so much I have bought the albums (on CD where possible as I prefer the actual medium), so it has actually generated sales for the best of the bands. My adblocker takes care of the ads, so when I use YT on mobile at work for testing AUX inputs on audio gear, I can understand why people hate them. I do 99% of my computing on desktop so don't normally have to know or care :p

 

As for TV, unlike Grazza, I can't DVR stuff to escape ads as I don't have a TV licence (too much crap on BBC and they have dumbed down the once-great science programmes such as Horizon), but do watch a lot of non-bbc sci/eng/tech stuff on catch-up, particularly UKTV Play. It's just a question of doing what I did as a kid before VCRs - using ad breaks to go to the toilet, let the cat in, etc :)

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, hybridial said:

I am not wowed by something of a technical level I could replicate because such a thing is to me, too simple to have any appeal whatsoever. And that's where I say its low effort, maybe other people had to work hard but I don't think the artists or the designers had to at all based on what was being presented to me, and really outside of the writing (the most important thing to any endeavour around crafting and communicating some form of story) I consider that the biggest appeal of a piece of animation.

That's your frame of reference? "I can draw something similar, therefore it is low effort?"

 

Please re-read the bolded part.

Quote

I'm probably being unfair, I'm probably wrong, but I don't care.

If you know this, why do it in the first place? Are you purposefully being obtuse, or what?

 

Quote

Also it says a lot @Redneckerz that you felt a need to name videogames that are in fact completely 3D but displayed on a 2D plane.

I didn't know there was a rulesset i had to adher to, despite naming examples if numerous mediums and without you elaborating/explaining why current animation is low effort in the first place.

 

Come up with some examples yourself. Maybe i can reject them aswell in a instant because it conflicts what i expected to read.

Quote

Do you have anything to say in response when I say Adventure Time is crude and basically drawn and is simply not very impressive when stacked up against something that clearly had much more effort put into the visuals? I find it weak.

I mean, i did. That you don't expand upon that but instead request a set of examples which you can then review on their legitimacy based on your standard (whatever that is, you didn't establish it prior) is on you, not me.

 

Quote

And no I didn't like the show in general either, tonally its not what I like in the slightest, but that's perhaps a separate thing.  

I find that in general your broad dislike for a lot of things also is under more aggressive scrutiny aswell.

Edited by Redneckerz

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, hybridial said:

 But I am declaring the artists did it in a crude simplistic style that I think is weak and low effort design work, and I will never be persuaded otherwise.

 

I dont like it so its weak and low effort thats just it no arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, jazzmaster9 said:

I dont like it so its weak and low effort thats just it no arguments.

 

I don't agree with an argument so no argument was made

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, hybridial said:

I don't agree with an argument so no argument was made

Well most of your argument was "i dont like the style so its objectively low effort"

 

So...

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, jazzmaster9 said:

Well most of your argument was "i dont like the style so its objectively low effort"

 

So...

 

I said it was too simple. You can disagree with that assessment, but it is a reason, and I think its not particularly disagreeable to observe that it is a simple style. And I find that to be kind of crude, I just like more intricate and detailed animation.

 

But its not "bad" or "low effort". I am being overly judgemental, and I willingly retract saying that. But I'm not a fan, suffice to say, I just like more intricate work. 

Share this post


Link to post

The last time I remember watching TV on a regular basis was back in the 2000s, when the BBC was still running repeats of Deep Space Nine and the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. I've watched plenty of series since then, but they've all been streamed or downloaded to my PC. I've never bought my own TV since leaving home. 

 

Most of what I've seen on TV since then has confirmed that this was the right decision. Every time I look on broadcast TV at work or at someone else's home, it's been either tedious bullshit or obnoxious, cringe-worthy adverts. Why the fuck anyone would actually spend money on a device to pump that shit right into your room, I have no fucking clue. I find it honestly difficult to watch broadcast TV nowadays, and anything worth watching can almost always be found somewhere online, whether through legitimate on-demand services, or some helpful fellow sharing it unofficially.

Radio is a bit more bearable, especially since I'm approaching the age group which a lot of local radio stations are seemingly aimed at, but again the advertisements can do my fucking head in. There's a radio in the office at my workplace, and sometimes I have to put on my headphones and play my own tunes, because apart from the advertisements, the station it's usually tuned to only seems to have a about a dozen songs which slowly change over the months. 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×