|
|
Post by numbuh7654 on Dec 31, 2006 12:24:45 GMT
Alright, I think we went off the subject far enough, can we please FOCUS!? Anyway, REVIEW? Stupid and proofless, with no sign of interviewing or resource gathering WHAT-SO-EVER. REPORTER? Most likely a broke loser who's afraid of kids ( ;Dteehee ^^) and has no sense of TV. VERDICT?Simple. Idiot Dr.Phil-wannabee MUST die. Or have the hurtin' put on him. -Father sucks. -Voltron was better. *Readies ice cream* FOODFIGHT!!!! *hurls blueberry scoop at J.E.B.S.* |
|
|
|
Post by queennicki on Dec 31, 2006 13:32:53 GMT
Alright, I think we went off the subject far enough, can we please FOCUS!? Anyway, REVIEW? Stupid and proofless, with no sign of interviewing or resource gathering WHAT-SO-EVER. REPORTER? Most likely a broke loser who's afraid of kids ( ;Dteehee ^^) and has no sense of TV. VERDICT?Simple. Idiot Dr.Phil-wannabee MUST die. Or have the hurtin' put on him. -Father sucks. -Voltron was better. *Readies ice cream* FOODFIGHT!!!! *hurls blueberry scoop at J.E.B.S.* i agree but...there was a foodfight and nobody called me?!?!?! EAT MASH POTATO!!! *throws mash potato* |
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Dec 31, 2006 13:47:40 GMT
Alright, I think we went off the subject far enough, can we please FOCUS!? No! Focus BAD! Besides, I don't have my camera. "Proofless?" "Interviewing?" "Resource-gathering?" Explain these terms, please. When I think of "resource-gathering" I think of gathering minerals in Starcraft, whcih I'm sure isn't what you meant. ....huh? No sense of TV? Is that something you get after you've been bitten by a radioactive television? And this has all been a lead-in to... OH YEAH? *Hurls strawberry cream pie at Numbuh One's ally* |
|
|
|
Post by numbuh7654 on Dec 31, 2006 21:58:31 GMT
 *snorts*Tell my mom. She's always like, "PAY ATTENTION IN CLASS!" ....*...AND I get it* OOOOH!! You're being sarcastic. Sorry...hahaha. The fact that the reporter is a jacka** noob lover who happens to be related (or even romantically attached)to Fluffles? *thinks about the romantic attachment to Fluffles and shudders so hard the back of the chair breaks* Euuugggghhh......poor guy. (JUST THIS ONCE I mean the bad reporter). Now WHY did I have to say things I can never UNREAD or UNWRITE? *hurls huge chocolate statue at J.E.B.S. and laughs like maniac*
|
|
|
|
Post by Numbuh Googol on Jan 1, 2007 22:54:44 GMT
Cool, a foodfight? But shouldn't we be throwing the food at the people who wrote the reviews rather than at each other?  *throws mouldy spinach at reviewer* NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPINACH INQUISITION. Seriously, the first one in particular made me laugh. For someone to honestly believe the show has no humour, no action, no emotion, no romance, and no... whatever else they said, well that gives me the impression that they haven't actually been paying attention. At all. I'm sorry if that sounds biased... but that's what I seriously think. The only negative thing I wondered about KND at first (which some of the reviewers have mentioned) is that I thought the characters might be a bad influence. However, if you actually pay some amount of attention to the show then you'd realise that actually it's done in a very clever way. It's the 21st century, and kids today aren't going to listen to goody-goody characters, it's just a fact of life. So they started off by making the characters typical kids. They then went on to develop them in such a way that there are secret hidden messages, which are actually a good influence: For example, in SPROUT we got the messages that vegetables are bad and kids prefer to stay away from them. But in a later episode, IT, it was portrayed that if you can make yourself eat the vegetables then you're very brave and tough. The reviewers haven't thought about this. Besides, they even confirmed in MATADOR that fighting evil supervillains is one thing, but just fighting random adults that aren't evil is bad. All I'm trying to say is... before reviewing something, it's best to really pay attention to that thing and what you're saying about it. Which those reviewers clearly haven't done. |
|
|
|
Post by Darrel Samaitha419 on Jan 2, 2007 1:47:30 GMT
Good points Numbuh Google ;D
But anyway (flings half boiled eggs at random directions) ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by numbuh7654 on Jan 2, 2007 14:38:22 GMT
*flings Benedict Arnold statue outside the park*
....what? Its the energy, dude! Can you feel the burn...?
|
|
|
|
Post by toxic43 on Jan 3, 2007 1:32:02 GMT
nah... FOODFIGHT!!!!!! *throws pie at random people*
Serena: DAMN YOU!
WEEEEEEEE I'M HYPER!
|
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Jan 3, 2007 3:47:44 GMT
Cool, a foodfight? But shouldn't we be throwing the food at the people who wrote the reviews rather than at each other? The reviewers would never know. Wouldn't be half as fun. Biggest problem I had with the reviews is that I didn't think the shows they held KND up against were really any better than they were claiming KND was. I mean, they compared it to shows like Seinfeld, Friends, Sheep in the Big City, and Looney Tunes. I would personally say that KND is easily better than any of those shows. Sitcoms (of which Friends and Seinfeld count) in general aren't really funny, rather they make a bunch of cynical or sexually-charged insinuations (accompanied by a laugh track, because the jokes are so lame we wouldn't know we're supposed to laugh) which aren't accepted so much for their humor as they are because they confirm some angry cynical moron's self-important world view. There's really no other reason to watch these shows--the characters never have any but the most generic personality traits, the plotlines are always basic appeal-to-the-masses tripe that exist as nothing more than an excuse to make the kind of cynicism I just got done deriding, and why the heck would I want to watch a show that takes place in a neighborhood "similar to my own" anyway? KND is easily superior to this, because KND is "Well we don't like the way things are so we'll do something about it!" and Sitcoms are "The world sucks and I'm a victim of it hey isn't it funny?" I honestly didn't watch Sheep in the Big City much... I mean, a stupid sheep running around being chased by the military? What the heck kind of concept is that? Oh, its supposed to be funny... but its mostly funny in the same way most comedy cartoons were--random references to pop culture and Sitcom-esque cynicisms. Looney Tunes is just a bunch of cartoon characters who annoy the beejeebers out of each other. There's not even any sort of plot or setting--the characters are fully congnizant that they're actors whose only purpose is to entertain the audience. KND is easily superior to all this. Ironically probably the worst episode of KND IMO was "No P in the OOL," because it was just generic cartoon comedy. But once the show started having a sense of concept continuity, characters, and universe, it got better. If I was to compare KND to anything, it would be to Voltron, He-Man and She-Ra, Inspector Gadget, the Legend of Zelda cartoon, Adventures of the Gummi Bears, Chip n' Dale Rescue Rangers, G.I. Joe, Jem and the Holograms, Rainbow Brite, the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon, and perhaps I would hold Operation: Z.E.R.O. up against Transformers: the Movie. KND would lose, sure, but at least its being compared to stuff thats on its own level--cartoons aimed at kids, full of wonder and imagination, instead of sitcoms aimed at braindead, emotionally sterile self-righteous adults. |
|
|
|
Post by NumbuhInfinity on Jan 3, 2007 5:28:44 GMT
How the freak can general-you compare a kids cartoon to an adult-focused live-action sitcom, anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Jan 3, 2007 12:34:01 GMT
How the freak can general-you compare a kids cartoon to an adult-focused live-action sitcom, anyway? By the looks of it, the answer is, "unfavorably, either way." |
|
|
|
Post by destinyinevitable on Jan 9, 2007 0:21:15 GMT
I remember reading one that said the show should be rated R. I'm not joking, it said that. And all of their evidence came from Operation: POOl, so you can tell they'd never watched another episode to get their sources correct. *rolls eyes* You've got to watch at least 3 episodes before I'm going to even consider your opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Jan 9, 2007 2:07:58 GMT
I think I remember the "it should be Rated R" review. That one, if its the one I'm thinking about, was written by a "concerned parent" who thought the show would give kids "bad ideas" (in short she's scared of it because it gives kids EXACTLY the kind of ideas they need to have).
Though KND being Rated R probably isn't too far off in today's ultra-PC entertainment industry. I remember when the movie The Matrix first came out, me and a friend of mine left the theatre and we wondered "Why, exactly, did THAT have an R Rating?"
|
|
|
|
Post by lilsw on Jan 9, 2007 6:02:57 GMT
(Looks at reviews) Ummmm, ok.
The reviews were definately written by those who barely watched the show.
|
|
|
|
Post by destinyinevitable on Jan 9, 2007 6:10:29 GMT
I know...I mean, rated R because they think that the kids are imagining it..and for goodness sakes, if you watch the episodes, you can tell that they DO listen to their parents for the most part. It's other adults they're wary of. *rolls eyes*
|
|
*snorts*Tell my mom. She's always like, "PAY ATTENTION IN CLASS!"
