Fans point out a writing inconsistency

But I find it hilarious and I'm one of those nitpicky fans.

t. manchild

Does this mean all your critique is valid if you work out

YES!

Animaniacs was pretty meh, even as a kid I didn't find it all that funny compared to stuff like tiny toons

>If you're writing comedic television for children who cares
Do kids even get some of the jokes from Animaniacs?

>Fans point out something offensive
>Writers prostrate themselves and beg for forgiveness, even when they are in the right
Every time, writers can't even hide behind "It's just fiction bro, don take it serious" when they do something politically incorrect on accident.

Attached: 4af.jpg (328x398, 34K)

Attached: HERESY!.jpg (811x559, 47K)

Freakazoid was better than either.

Please, Please, Pleese Have Sex

I like the Animaniacs sketch and the Simpson’s “genius at work” bit in a way that I feel I can laugh at myself a little

But I hate some other instances like whenever Teen Titans Go shits on its predecessor’s fanbase for not liking the new show.

it implies that you should probably owe up to the fact that the media you enjoy so much is aimed at literal children and you should not take it so fucking seriously

If this were Steven Universe or some other Lore based show, yes. This however was referring to Animaniacs, where the only rule is "is it funny in relation to how the characters act?"

>get attacked by rabid fans before the show is even out
>makes fun of said rabid fans
I love the dog TT but the fans are some of the worst

you want them to reproduce?

>Lmao just don't do a good job writing it's that simple lmao

>Not Please Please Pleese

One. fucking. job.

>Fans point out that the writing is becoming dull, boring, uninteresting and going nowhere
>"lmao shut up NAZI!!! no one cares you white MALE!!"

Learn to read

When has that ever happened? The response about white males usually comes after complainta that non-white characters exist, not that the qriting is bad. You pussies will do anything to feel like a victim.

as opposed to an all round tool like you neckbeards

>its okay to not try and give your half assed work ethic a go if its for cartoons
Idiots like you should be shot, your type should be barred from ever working in the entertainment industry because its this same lazy entitled attitude that keeps delivering the worst cartoons of this godforsaken decade.

Attached: 000F61D7-2610-4A23-8326-F5C4DDE44034.jpg (612x1086, 80K)

It's supposed to embarrass the critic for taking bad writing seriously (translate: mentioning it) even though the writer is the one calling himself a professional while making a children's show.

WB toons like Animaniacs wasn't solely for children

user I'm going to call you out if you ever mention the quality of any YouTube kids videos afterall it is for kids you shouldn't care lmao

Nobody who posts on Yea Forums about comic book writers will ever amount to anything so your warning is pointless

>Nobody who posts on Yea Forums about comic book writers will ever amount to anything so your warning is pointless
Hey king

Your batman comic sucked, king

The point is that "writing inconsistencies" are the lowest and the cheapest form of writing """""criticism""""". It's incredibly easy to go "BUT WHY DIDN'T CHARACTER DO X INSTEAD OF Y ISN'T THIS A PLOOOOOT HOOOOOLE???" without regard for character motivation or pacing or thematic cohesion, because the Cinemasins school of film theory posits that stories that don't have airtight physics and hyperrational protagonists are Basically Shit. This doesn't excuse obvious plot induced boneheaded retardation or breaking the rules of one's own setting to a point where it breaks the overall plot, but even then it's more a matter of knowing when/where you can get away with it.

I love the autistic quantifying of superpowers to pit my favorite action figures against each other, but I'm not autistic enough to think that forcing all writing to be like that would turn capeshit into even more of a bland boring fuckfest than it already is.

The "Please Please Please Get a Life Foundation" was an industry coming to terms with the Internet, where you can find at least a hundred people ready, willing, and able to nitpick literally any show –indeed, to take a show much more seriously than it was ever meant to be taken. It's like Rule 34 but instead of porn it's trivia and gripes.

We take it for granted now, but people didn't know what to do in the mid-1990s. Animaniacs was among the first to acknowledge it directly. All the lines they gave to the nerd characters were probably taken right off Usenet.

This cartoon was basically "Animaniacs Thread Simulator 1.0."

There's a fine line between comedic roasting and thinly veiled contempt. The epitome of fan contempt has to be the Sherlock episode where Sherlock turns out to still be alive, and he has these in-universe "fans" who obsess over trying to figure out how he faked his death, and going over all the theories, and Sherlock even meets them just to fuck with them, and the true solution is never revealed. Now, Internet fans going over a continuity problem in a TV-Y-rated cartoon is silly, and if you point out that's silly, then it's a fair cop. But, Internet fans going over the solution to a mystery in a mystery show, natch, the TV show positioning itself as the DEFINITIVE mystery show for its generation, that's par for the course. Indeed, what would it have said about the show if there were no speculation? Sherlock was unequivocally shitting on its fans.

The WB and Simpsons "dude nerds lmao" gags are about inconsistencies that don't matter, mistakes that don't effect the joke, minor stuff that can't really be prevented given the way the shows are produced, and the trivia page on every wiki article ever. They're not about meaningful inconsistencies and errors, like Flanders suddenly being younger than Homer for no reason or a big layering issue.

It's fine to make fun of autistic nitpickers.

In 199X, the PPPGALF had to bring out a Barney-analogue to shock a nerd out of his fandom.

In 202X, they'll probably have to deal with Barney-analogue fans with 2GB porn folders, what do they do with those?

Attached: Baloney-Animaniacs.png (180x228, 61K)

i'll TELL you what they do with Baloney in our slacks fans!

>every thread is an Oswald thread

Attached: angry-ozzie.png (220x234, 6K)

Found the guy who would be a studio exec.

You wanna know why MLP got so big? Yeah, it was the cutesy designs, but for the first 2 seasons, it had internally consistent lore.

I always thought this one was weird, because like half the examples are nerds explaining the joke for people who don't get it. Why would you not want people to learn about your jokes?

See now, that's just disingenuous. First, Cinemasins is hardly criticism to begin with, despite the fact they occasionally lump in actual issues with the "jokes". The channel is trash regardless, but I don't know of anyone who actually sees it as legitimate in that regard. Second, that bit of hyperbole up there is almost never what people bitch about. It's about characters acting against what they've been established as or plot relevant rules/systems being bent or broken because a sub-standard writer managed to wedge themselves into a corner.

As someone who likes a wide swath of media I can tell you right now that the complaints come down to internal consistency. It isn't about "hyper rational" characters, it's about characters not being written consistently, like with smart/competent characters suddenly getting retarded. If a character is smart, they're smart (even if it's just specific areas) and if a character isn't knowledgeable about something, then they shouldn't have a sudden flash of insight into something they know nothing about. Take bloody Finn in TLJ. Dude goes from literally not knowing about Hyperspace tracking to knowing the location of device that does it on the flagship...and that only one ship uses it at a time...god that film is garbage.

Either way, tl;dr your post is retarded.

Who puts air in the batmobile's tires?

>First, Cinemasins is hardly criticism to begin with, despite the fact they occasionally lump in actual issues with the "jokes". The channel is trash regardless, but I don't know of anyone who actually sees it as legitimate in that regard.
A ton of kids and autists take it at face value. ThatGuyWithTheGlasses got big because kids thought the angry reviewers were funny and right. This isn't an uncommon thing, and the conflation of nitpicking minutiae with criticism had been around longer than any of us. Shit, there are people on Yea Forums right now who think Kink are did "good critiques" when all he ever did was summarize comic books and TV shows, act incredulous, and point out logical inconsistencies.

>Second, that bit of hyperbole up there is almost never what people bitch about. It's about characters acting against what they've been established as or plot relevant rules/systems being bent or broken because a sub-standard writer managed to wedge themselves into a corner.
There's an obscene amount of people who think characters are supposed to be rigid machines and not people. They get upset at brainfarts and insight and instinct and dialogue that isn't perfectly conveying what their feelings and intentions are. There's plenty of media where writers play fast and loose because they suck, but acknowledging this leads plenty of people to the opposite extreme.

user's on point, there's a lot of shitty faux-critics with nothing of value to say who get hung up on dumb shit instead of problems like pacing, conveyance, framing, detail, creativity, voice, agency, etc.

Are we reading Bill Finger Batman, Frank Miller Batman, or Scott Snyder Batman?
If we're reading Morrison, he did it psychically and told us it didn't matter so we wouldn't learn about his metanarrative powers.

>Kink are
Linkara.

Yes, and for the sake of any argument you don't take the outliers into consideration unless it's specifically about just that group. Stupid people are all over the place and they're interested in all facets of life. That's not new or interesting and conflating that group with people who have issues with "writing inconsistencies" is asinine. That's what the dude I was responding to did. Reread his post, it isn't just referencing idiots. On top of that, no, there aren't an "obscene amount of people who think characters are supposed to be rigid machines". Keep in mind how many people go to and enjoy badly written media. Take a look at the amount of people who think the Game of Thrones ending was coherent. People are siginificantly more likely to "turn off their brain" as the saying goes and just enjoy whatever is in front of them.

Even ignoring that, conveyance, framing, creativity, voice, agency, etc. are all secondary to the internal consistency of a work. Take Avengers: Endgame. There are plenty of scenes that are well shot, emotionally impactful, superbly paced, and absolutely fucking retarded once you put the slightest thought into them. That undercuts all of the emotions. If you can sit there thinking "Christ, this doesn't make a lick of sense." then it doesn't matter how competent the other facets of a work are, it rings hollow. The spectacle becomes just a high budget set of jangling keys.

>Even ignoring that, conveyance, framing, creativity, voice, agency, etc. are all secondary to the internal consistency of a work.
Absolutely fucking not.
A work that's internally consistent but nothing else has no value. That's merely a lack of error. The elements you're discrediting in comparison are expressions of craftsmanship and intent. If only one of them is done well, there's at least something positive to be said about the media. There's plenty of flawed but beautiful art out there where the plot simply doesn't work or is riddled with holes, because there's more to writing and telling a story than its consistency or how sound the plot is. You can make an emotionally moving video in spite of an inconsistent, lackluster plot.

Wouldn't it be Alfred?

Hit a nerve huh?

Honestly I would agree with you if so many fan complaints weren't completely asinine.

I can think of several reasons why Finn would have known, it's not important to the story that he is explicitly told the location. If I tell you I've installed a hyperspace tracker, odds are pretty good it hooks up to the hyperspace drive, yeah? I bet the hacker who thinks he can shut it down would have a reasonable understanding as well. It also doesn't matter that he assumes there's only one, since we don't know enough about hyperspace technology to judge the difficulty, cost, or limitations involved in installing such a system, and have to take the conclusions of the characters who are familiar with hyperspace drives at face value.

No, he literally stated that tracking through hyperspace was impossible, then proceeded to state the location of the device that did the thing he just said couldn't be done. Considering that accounts for a large portion of the movies plot (despite it going nowhere) I'd say that's a pretty hefty bit of "What the fuck are the writers doing"

I'm not saying the others aren't needed. I'm saying a work without consistency undercuts all of them. I'm not discrediting them, I'm saying they're less important than the basis of the work. Way to intentionally whiff on that point there, chief.

>I'm not saying the others aren't needed. I'm saying a work without consistency undercuts all of them.
I know what you said. I don't agree with you and I explained why. A work can be effective even if the plot is nonsense garbage or full of holes, and any one of those elements can be good in a vacuum. A narrative that's internally consistent can help, but it isn't a good thing on its own. Logic is less important than how you present your idea.

>I'm not discrediting them, I'm saying they're less important than the basis of the work.
Discredited in comparison. As in, when compared. As in, they aren't important when placed next to that which you think is essential.

Way to intentionally whiff on that point there, chief.
Way to be a condescending cunt because someone disagrees with you, friend.

It's way more important that panel composition is on point, themes are strong and the dialogue is good than if Lex Luthor's plan to kill Superman this month actually makes sense.

>themes are strong

Autist found.

>themes

This shit again. You're the same retard that thinks The Dragon Prince was written well because "there's nothing wrong with the themes" aren't you?

even so.

them lashing out at people like that makes them look like even bigger manchildren, not heroes of the populace.

I like how they get Barney to bring them back to reality. Just like that guy in the coma.

I imagine they're puncture resistant, airless tires

Because children don't have as keen of an eye for detail, and won't care if someone's shirt colour changes between shots.

No, it really isn't.

Discredited in comparison my entire ass. That's not how you used it, and your explanation is trash. Your investment in predicated on things making sense. If Superman swooped in and saved Dick Tracy you'd have some serious questions about the world regardless of how "you present your idea."

lmao shut up NERD!!!

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 72K)

1 i think he's just using the fanboy character to make a point and
2 the characterization was consistent

Everyone does that, though. You're not allowed to criticize something because that means you hate it and if you hate it then you shouldn't watch it and also fuck you for breathing air you piece of shit.

Maybe is a cultural thing? Japanese people mock their viewers when they point some inconsistencies in their work?

That skit was actually pretty funny desu, no one should feel offended by it.
I mean, some do, but Japanese creators have more restrains about how they act in public, also some animators are to busy dying to care about what someone thinks on the internet

related

Attached: 1556366290302.jpg (847x2086, 891K)

based and Francis E. Dec-pilled

Harold

wow, you really are an autist

>fuck Roald Dahl
>fuck Lewis Carroll
>fuck Rudyard Kipling
>fuck Dr. Seuss
>fuck Maurice Sendak
>fuck Beverly Cleary
>fuck Judy Blume
>dumb fucking kids should just eat shit

>Have Sex
that's not the magic argument ender you think it is

>implying
do you have autism?

Doesn't matter, have sex.

I've had sex.

I still care about plotholes.

Not even "probably". They not only lifted many lines directly from alt.tv.animaniacs, they actually went out and invited members of the group to take a studio tour that included them getting a look at this exact episode while it was being made. The showrunners were worried it would provoke a negative reaction, but the fans loved it (because back then people still had an iota of self-awareness, I suppose).