ITT Post Your Random Thoughts

[Mr. Big]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm a weirdo because I rarely nitpick on flaws in story elements, where people go "why is the character acting like this? They haven't acted like this since season 1 thru character development!" or "how does this improbable element work in this comic with talking animals?"

Do people look at the MST3K lyrics "It's just a show; I should really just relax" and say "nah, only losers do that"?

I don't know. I don't think I care too much about this sort of thing.

[Mr. Big]

Not to say that this excuses serious plot holes or anything, or SERIOUS continuity errors. That's always gonna be problematic for the flow of the story.

But minor stuff like that, I'm like "eh"

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

it depends on the story for me and what has been the case up to that point

a cartoon that plays fast and loose, i'm more forgiving than one that claims to have a set storyline and characters in that story. there there's more of a chance to notice issues, but even then it depends on how big of an issue we're talking. a error here and there is fine as long as the major chunk of the plot and writing isn't affected

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

these days i tend to zero in more on writing that does offensive bullshit, than writing errors

like if writers kill off a gay character and bend over backwards to justify their decision

that's a real "go fuck yourself" kind of thing for me

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

also i think the reason nitpicking is so much of a thing is that people keep getting "told" that criticism is nitpicking things to hell, instead of focusing on what actually works/doesn't work and what kind of message you're giving with your writing

for that we can honestly blame cinemasins

[Mr. Big]

Yeah, that's my thought for the most part.

It's no surprise to people that I prefer cartoons that are fast and loose, which is sadly less popular nowadays, with more and more people preferring cartoons with longer arc, which TBH I don't really care for that much with few exceptions (Gravity Falls, for example).

I always feel like an odd one out because of that. Kinda frustrating, honestly.

[Perpetual Motion]

For me, quick and episodic cartoons are all fine and good, but there has to be something there. Shorts and stuff like classic Looney Tunes are good because they're quick, to the point, and don't overstay their welcome. Now, if you wanted to make a season of 22 minute episodes in that same format of wall to wall gags, that's where you run into problems. If you want me to be invested in something enough to watch more than a single episode of it, you have to give me something to care about. I'm not invested in Bugs Bunny's adventures because there's no narrative tension. Nothing about Bugs's character is ever challenged or expounded upon. He just runs into whatever obstacle he has to deal with and dispatches it in a funny way. We know Bugs is going to win, no matter what, and that he has nothing to learn from his experiences. That's not the character's fault, that's the format's fault.

In fact, you can look to The Looney Tunes Show for a great example of what needs to change to make a series out of such a property. Bugs Bunny is still Bugs Bunny, he just has more relatable problems to deal with, isn't always the focus, and doesn't always come out on top, at least not without having to overcome his flaws in some way. You don't need a multi-episode arc, but you still need continuity. You need characterization and growth that builds over time, making future episodes richer with knowledge of past ones, and making past ones better with context of future ones.

Since this is the forum we're on, I'd say Friendship is Magic hits the sweetspot in this regard. You get, maybe two episodes a season outside of openers and finales that deal with the "Myth Arc," so to speak. But the rest are very important, because the characters and world grow with each one. That's what makes it good. It just so happens that good characterization and growth is a necessary baseline for establishing a big arc for your show, so the two tend to go hand in hand (see: Gravity Falls, Steven Universe, Avatar, and tons more).

In conclusion, classic cartoons are good as standalone products, meant to be consumed and enjoyed, but not really expanded upon or thought about that much. What I find more appealing about modern cartoons is that capability for input and thought and growth. What I take away from Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse is a good time with a familiar character, which is absolutely valid and valuable. But what I take away from MLP or Steven Universe are characters and worlds that I keep thinking about after I'm done watching, and it leaves me wanting more.

[Mr. Big]

Yeah, absolutely. I was also thinking the best "Simpsons" episodes as good examples of episodic shows.

And this made me realize, we don't really get "three shorts" cartoons anymore, huh (as in, thee segments per half-hour)? Although 11 minute cartoons are still very common, which is a close equivalent.

[Mr. Big]

In hindsight, I think saying I want more "fast and loose" was misleading. I just want more episodic cartoons in general. Whether it's "fast or loose" or not can depend on the show.

I think I'm thinking about this stuff because I tried to watch the new "Green Eggs and Ham" show and I just...couldn't get through the first episode at all. (Sorry, people who likes it.)

[Perrydotto]

Different strokes different folks, 's cool

I'm with PM and Daikatuna as well. A lot of what makes writing good is a case by case situation for me, and it depends a ton on what I perceive the goal of a show is and how well it reaches those. And how much writing snags or whatever stand out depends a lot on the context and general quality of the show

For me, episodic stuff is fun if it makes good use of the episodic nature. Stuff where the world is more open to wild premises that shouldn't overstay their welcome is great, but only if it really knows how to make use of that. I'm biased at the moment since I watched through all of Star Trek Voyager and that is a show with a premise that sounds ripe for continuity-heavy stories, but it ends up being episodic, much to its disadvantage. That's what I meant with fulfilling goals - Whatever you want to make, make sure it fits what you are going for. I like seeing characters grow and stories develop, which tends to be more of a thing in a continuity-heavy show, but I also like wild "what if" scenarios and creative premises that make for good shorts in the episodic format. Know what you are going for, is all.

[Perpetual Motion]

Voyager is pretty much the posterboy for wasted potential. Everything from the base premise to individual episodes to various story arcs to just production getting ruined by bad leadership.

My favorite example is the Year of Hell. This was an event that they actually were putting work into foreshadowing seasons beforehand. During various Star Trek Messes With Time Travel™ episodes, glimpses of a future event were seen where basically everything has gone to shit, even more so than usual. The ship was falling apart, named characters were dead, that kind of thing. Then it finally happens in the show... and it's over and done with in a season-ending two parter, with a huge Time Travel reset button being deployed to fix everything, and it might as well have never happened. Apparently this was a huge production snafu at the time. Originally the Year of Hell was supposed to be an entire season, and a lot was poured into leading up to it. Then someone up top chickened out and the whole plan was reworked into the wet fart of a two parter that we actually got. Nothing big was ever allowed to happen, and no changes were allowed to stick. That was the operating standards Voyager ran on. It gets really annoying after a while.

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

goddamn

[Aramek]

We are 10 days in on no shave November and I'm trying really hard to not catch TB.

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

rip

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

i desire to have the money to burn all my hair off my face with a laser

[Perrydotto]

Voyager is pretty much the posterboy for wasted potential. Everything from the base premise to individual episodes to various story arcs to just production getting ruined by bad leadership.

My favorite example is the Year of Hell. This was an event that they actually were putting work into foreshadowing seasons beforehand. During various Star Trek Messes With Time Travel™ episodes, glimpses of a future event were seen where basically everything has gone to shit, even more so than usual. The ship was falling apart, named characters were dead, that kind of thing. Then it finally happens in the show... and it's over and done with in a season-ending two parter, with a huge Time Travel reset button being deployed to fix everything, and it might as well have never happened. Apparently this was a huge production snafu at the time. Originally the Year of Hell was supposed to be an entire season, and a lot was poured into leading up to it. Then someone up top chickened out and the whole plan was reworked into the wet fart of a two parter that we actually got. Nothing big was ever allowed to happen, and no changes were allowed to stick. That was the operating standards Voyager ran on. It gets really annoying after a while.

Thanks for summarizing it so nicely!

Yeah this is what I meant - Not actually comitting to a vision that makes sense. Not all visions will please everyone, of course not, but these kinda massive discrepancies between the apparent goal and the actual execution massively tarnish the viewing experience

it's like when CAD needed to be about miscarriages all of a sudden; it's not sloppy or forgetful execution, it's the outright decision to not really question where your choices are leading you and whether those are good choices for what you want your work to accomplish

I'm all for things trying to be inventive and not getting stuck in an overly predictable rut, but at some point you go beyond "this is a fresh twist for this show" and way into "what were you thinking" territory

so yeah long rambling short, to me, the most frustrating creations are either 1) full of obviously wasted potential, 2) careless about what they do and the consequences it has (see social justice stuff, etc), or 3) both

nobody in their right mind expects perfection, but I think people are generally justified to expect coherence and care

[Perrydotto]

3) for me applies to things whether they intended to just not give a shit or not, by the way, but the former makes it obviously much more egregious

see David Cage for instance, he's the embodiment of wasting a lot of potential on very careless, pretentious bullshit

[Mr. Big]

Wow, that sounds like a big clusterfuck. Star Trek in general seems like it's great for long-form stuff, so it's sad it didn't pan out there due to creative meddling.

I also like wild "what if" scenarios and creative premises that make for good shorts in the episodic format.

I think you described the kind of thing I always look for.

I LOVE character-based stories, where we see situations based around how a character would act. Sometimes I always get excited when I see a situation and go "I wonder how character X would react to it". This is the kind of stuff I live for. And yeah, I do kinda operate on the "what if" scenario when I write, which is always a joy to do. (Ironically, I did occasionally come up with continuity-heavy stuff BECAUSE of said "what if" scenarios. Not the first time I've been hypocritical )

I think this is why when a group of writers talk about worldbuilding I rarely get interested in them, because usually the characters aren't fully developed. It's pretty obvious they thought of the world first and added characters just to service it, when, IMO, the characters should come first, and the world should service them.

When I write I always think about the characters first, and have them shape the world based on what they're like.

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

It always frustrated me when a show has potential for telling a long form plot and they get slapped with the need to maintain a status quo no matter what.

it's just, what's the point then?

[Fizzbuzz]

it's just, what's the point then?

To sell toys, or to appeal to advertisers, or some other function that makes money. In those situations it's almost certainly a case of whoever's bankrolling it thinking there'll be a better return on investment by never changing things.

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

was it the new thundercats reboot that pretty much ended up just being a really boring episodic tv show that went nowhere and died after the first season?

i remember something like that

[Mr. Big]

There's another "Thundercats" reboot coming out, "ThunderCats Roar".

Judging by the style, I don't think they're gonna be serious with it

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

i mean, if that's the idea from the start that's fine

the reboot i'm thinking of looked like it had a plot going and even had a serious look to it and then just flopped on that front

[Mr. Big]

So there's been some big discussion on Twitter this week because, with all the individual animators sharing scenes they did for "Green Eggs and Ham", none of them actually got screen credit for it. And, yeah, I noticed that myself when I looked at the credits.

This is something I noticed when cartoons have their animation subcontracted. It's usually rare for animators of those studios to get credit (FiM is interestingly one of the exceptions; they actually list the Filipino animators that worked on the show).

This is especially the case if the cartoon is animated in Korea or other Asian countries. We rarely know the individual animators in those countries. Just nameless faces that worked under the Rough Draft or Wang Films umbrella.

By contrast, if a cartoon is animated in Canada or Australia there's a bigger chance that their names will be listed. I noticed that when a Hanna-Barbera cartoon was animated in Australia, their names were credited, but if a cartoon was animated in Taiwan they didn't receive screen credit at all (except for occasional supervisors).

That being said, this is not always the case; occasionally Korean animators have been listed, and there has been Australian-produced cartoons with no animators credited.

[Mr. Big]

This is only semi-related, but I remember watching an old anime and there was this one animator who had a distinct style that just kept showing up in various episodes, and I wanted to know who was it, or at least who directed it.

To my annoyance, the end credits were no help. It was very sparse, listing only the creator, writers, music composer, and voice actors. That's it. The director didn't even get credit.

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

whether or not the x-files is good depends on which part of the x-files your watching

the overarcing plot completly shat itself in the end, but the stand alone episodes still own

especially when the show leans into humor or the fact that mulder is basically a nerd

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

my favorite genre of x-files screenshots is the looks scully gives mulder whenever he says anything stupid and/or farfetched

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

or stuff like this

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

or this

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

from what i remember the episode that's from is that some guy saw a monster and all they have to go on is a crude drawing he made the and it's really just a giant joke of an episode

[RIP Syndrome]

should I or should I not leave the X-Files theme playing over Christmas in my apartment when I go to my parents place for the holidays

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

spooky

[Perpetual Motion]

That "I've seen it" scene deserves the Dickbutt Treatment.

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

That "I've seen it" scene deserves the Dickbutt Treatment.

[Mr. Big]

Honestly, I relate to this. I think my comics are considered:

-Too rough for mainstream
-Too episodic/too much focus on humor for graphic novels
-Too conventional for a webcomic
-Too childish for indie

I'm kind of in a weird place with my stuff.

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

multiple endings are largely pointless and muddy a game's narrative

[diribigal]

multiple endings are largely pointless and muddy a game's narrative

Say that to The Stanley Parable's face

(Yes I know you said "largely" but whatever)

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

and undertale has a really meaty true ending that's part of the narrative. That's why "largely" is there

[Mechanical Ape]

The trick is having multiple endings which, while being materially different, each offer a proper resolution to the story’s theme.

This is why a lot of “evil endings” don’t work, like you’ve been trying to kill the villain for the past 40 hours but then suddenly you decide to join him? That’s nonsense. It’s neither consistent with, nor foreshadowed by, anything that’s happened prior to that. Let’s face it, most games are extremely traditional narratives with the hero beating the villain, and that’s the only ending that makes sense, and if alternatives are offered players pick them not because they make sense, but because they want to see what the bad ending looks like.

Each alternate ending needs to feel as though, if there were no choices and this was the official ending, it would still feel like a satisfying resolution. And not all stories lend themselves to that open-endedness; while others do, but are stronger for not exploring the other ways things might have gone. The Last of Us *could* have ended with Joel doing a different thing than the thing he did; it’s easy to imagine a version of the game where the player is allowed to choose for Joel in the critical moment, and get two possible endings, both of which would have been pretty good resolutions to the theme. But the fact that we’re NOT allowed to choose for Joel, that Joel is doing what he wants regardless of what everyone else might want, including the player — in TLOU’s case that lack of choice is the point. It’s the classic tragedy: things might have gone differently if it had been anyone else, but because these characters are who they are, what is avoidable is instead inevitable.

Games that I think do multiple endings well ... Spec Ops: The Line has a bunch of endings and they all make sense in their own way. The first Legacy of Kain has a good and an evil ending, both of which make sense and are set up throughout the game, so that either choice feels in character for Kain at that point.

Then there’s Life Is Strange, which in the words of Ian Danskin, creates TWO very distinct storylines and then at the end, asks the player which storyline they want an ending to.



Games that don’t do it well ... for all that Planescape: Torment is amazingly and deeply written, and for all its success in giving the player a range of choices, when it comes to the ending there really is only one “real” ending, and while others are available they’re all unresolving or just ... lesser. Comparing the endings it’s clear the creators intend a specific one to be THE ending, which you may be locked out of depending on how you spent your stat points, which is kinda bullshit. Fighters need thematic resolution too!

[DaikatunaRevengeance]

Life is strange was one of the games i was thinking of when i said that.

To me it embodies the fetishization of choice both by players and the industry as a whole. There is one clear canon ending, and one alternate non-canon ending. The canon ending is the one you're expected to choose, it's epilogue gets the most attention from the devs and it's the one that actually looks like an epilogue to the story. The other one is a quick scene before the credits roll. Chloe dying was built up and foreshadowed to that point and letting her die was the point of the story.

Simply put, there are no two very distinct storylines, there is only one storyline and two endings.

It is pretty much an example of what i'm talking about. A "good" ending and a "bad" ending, intended to give you "multiple endings" because the ideas of "choice", "non-linearity" and "multiple endings" are an obession within the video game community and games that give you that are lauded whereas linearity is frowned up (i've read enough reviews in my life that had the line "the game is alright but it's too linear" in its many variations).