Thursday, December 24, 2015
The Critical Frog: SOAC Act 3: Frog Tries Not To Be A Jerk
There's a fine line between being critical and just plain being a jerk, and there's nothing I hate doing more than walking that line (except George of the Jungle 2, but seriously, screw that movie). This is much more prevalent when a cartoon or film shows and stars characters dealing with real-life issues- issues that could raise a lot of controversy and aggression towards me if I step out of line. And lucky for us, today I'm going to get those out of the way. There aren't many shows left after this, so let's get to it.
Punky
---------------------------------
What exactly do I mean when I say walking the line? Well, Punky is a show about a girl with Downs's Syndrome. It's good that a show is drawing attention to this, but here's the problem: it never directly addresses the issue. There's no difference between Punky and any other character: she just acts like every troublemaking kid in the 90's era of cartooning. She dances, plays with her friends and dog, and finds solutions to problems, all while overcoming her syndrome in my eyes.. That is, if I didnt have to play the intro to know that she had it in the first place.
As far as kid's shows go, it's not too bad. As a representation of Down's, however? Well....I believe the great Danny Sexbang put it best: "I think our friends out there with (Insert Medical Condition) deserve something much better than this."
3/5
---------------------------------
Dr. Wonder's Workshop
---------------------------------
Being deaf is a condition that I could never take, given my line of work. The fact that not too many films or cartoons will originally broadcast in a method that allows the deaf to fairly judge and enjoy them. This is the problem that Dr. Wonder's Workshop aims to solve, by not only starring an entire cast of deaf characters, but by having the show's characters sign out their lines rather than say them (a voice-over is provided for us listeners). And it works.
I'm not sure who came up with the idea to broadcast Dr. Wonder's Workshop, but they're a good person in my book. Appealing to the deaf culture and giving sign language it's turn on the screen was a big leap for children's television, and while a decent show by itself, gives Dr. Wonder it's place on the channel and a welcome distraction for the hearing-impaired. The only main question here is what exactly they produce in this workshop- and to be fair, I have no clue.
The story of the workshop is simple: Dr. Wonder and his employees (Token Women, Token Old Man, Token Black Guy and Token White Guy) do things around the workshop while teaching lessons about responsibility, honesty and safety, with interwoven bible stories and interviews with other users of sign language. We learn how to be careful on the internet when going to sites you do not know (but Drwonder.com is safe, of course), how to prioritize work before play, and more importantly, exactly how much the two male employees want to go to a St. Louis Cardinals game. No matter what the situation, lessons are learned and signed. It's interesting to mention that even Dr. Wonder himself has slips in judgement, and winds up making mistakes- not just leaving that to his assistants.
Is there a future in television for the deaf culture? Maybe. If shows can take the success of popular cartoons lately and mix that in with sign language, then we could easily be capable of making shows accessible before subtitled DVDs need to be purchased. Given, it would be hard to adapt some of these to fit the method (how do you sign with hooves?), but Dr. Wonder's Workshop is a nice start.
4/5
------------------------------
Who Do Ewe Follow/ Lassie
-------------------------------
It's a bad sign when the network occasionally replaces your show with a public domain one from the early days of TV. It's even worse when even the TV guide thinks it's your show that's playing. And it gets much worse when you realize that the public domain show is much more entertaining than yours.
Who Do Ewe Follow is one of those shows that even the networks are ashamed to admit are theirs. It's as staple as you can imagine, the songs are weak, and the animation is mediocre at best. A flock of sheep deliberately ignores their herder and constantly mess up, while a pack of wolves attempts to eat them with similar results. Cue the bible jokes and end the review.
To be frank, I'd much rather talk about Lassie than this. The only problem with that is that nobody wants to hear me talk about Lassie- everybody already knows what people can say about this. Guess we could hand it to SOAC for having some sort of quality control. Now all we need to do is get them to knock a few of these shows off their list.....
0/5 for Who Do Ewe Follow/4/5 for Lassie
--------------------------------
Well, that's it for this edition of SOAC Network. I've covered everything I need to say about the network, except for one show- which I'll explain next week. Until then, happy holidays!
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
The Critical Frog :SOACN Act Two: Dreams and Demons
In this edition of Frog Reviewing The Smile Of A Child Children's Network, we;ll be discussing some of the more interesting submissions to the channel. Some of these aren't bad, some are surprising, and some are abominable.
Sing Along With Gina D (Or Gina D's Kids Club)
------------------------------------------------------
Once upon a time, a little girl named Gina D went to her grandmother's house. While she was asleep, she had a dream that the house was a kid's club. Disregarding the possibilities of remembering said dream (assuming it occurred during REM sleep), and the shady implications of a grown woman and her friends hanging around small children, she remembered it fondly, and when she grew up, decided to make her dream a reality, presumably after sending her grandmother to a retirement home and taking over the house.
I'm really not sure how to describe this show. Ever seen one of those kid's shows that features a few live-action characters interacting with cartoon characters, puppets, and otherwise nonliving characters (The Wiggles)? Think of that, but instead of four people, it's two- and instead of several different songs, repeated ones carrying on from episode to episode.
This show is, quite obviously, a musical show for small children. Our hosts are Gina D herself, the rejected brother of Crocodile Dundee (Simon Wallaby), Pierre the Frenchman (who is definitely not stereotypical at ALL, guys), and Mr. Pockets, who you may recognize as that creepy clown you always see during your nightmares. They are joined by TV Ted (a TV), Doggie Brown (A dog) and several puppets, all of which appear to simply ask Gina to sing a certain song or to learn lessons about friendship and such, all through the same songs.
I have no issues with repeated songs- it's just interesting to see that Gina herself (an actually alright singer) uses these as segues into other bits and newer songs. The only other thing worth mentioning here is the tour footage that plays at the end of a few episodes. This shows Gina and some of her friends touring and appealing to children, while a gospel hymm is sung in the background (you didnt think we wouldn't throw in the Bible SOMEWHERE, did you?).
As far as kid's shows go, even Bible shows, this isn't bad. I wouldn't go as far as to compare it to some of the other things aired on the channel, At the most, it's harmless singing with morals and religion thrown in. Harmless, that's the best way to describe this. Except maybe Mr. Pockets- I don't trust that clown.
3/5
-----------------------------------------
Little Buds
----------------------------------------
I'm just going to say it flat-out: BURN THIS. Burn the puppets, dismantle the set, and tell the children to get a news parody from something else (the Jelly News, perhaps, if you stick with the channel?). This is not the kind of thing a network should want to be affiliated with.
The show's plot? Heck if I know. Apparently this is a news network run by flowers, who maintain a standard television station until letters begin to attack. The rest of this 22-minute program is the alphabet. Literally. It just takes the single letter and displays examples for roughly 16 minutes. It's dull, tiring and overall unpleasant.
You know what this is? This is a Creepypasta waiting to happen. One of those little kid's shows that seems innocent until freaky stuff begins to happen and the kids begin to act crazy . I half expect to see a still frame of these hideous flower puppets bleeding from their hyper-realistic eyes.
0/5
----------------------------------------
Aardvark to Zucchini
-----------------------------------------
HELLO, HUMANS. AM NORMAL AARDVARK. AM NOT DEMON. ME HAVE FRIEND ZUCCHINI. IT NORMAL ZUCCHINI, NOT DEMON, LIKE ME, AARDVARK. YOU WATCH SHOW AND LEARN ALPHABETS. WE TEACH YOU LETTERS NOW. YOU SAY GOODNIGHT PRAYER WITH US AT NOON. IS GOOD IDEA. AM NOT DEMON, TO MAKE SURE. HELLO, SMALL CHILDREN! MAY I LOOK AT YOUR SPINAL FLUIDS, JUST FOR A MOMENT?
Hail The Dark One/5
----------------------------------------
This show is, quite obviously, a musical show for small children. Our hosts are Gina D herself, the rejected brother of Crocodile Dundee (Simon Wallaby), Pierre the Frenchman (who is definitely not stereotypical at ALL, guys), and Mr. Pockets, who you may recognize as that creepy clown you always see during your nightmares. They are joined by TV Ted (a TV), Doggie Brown (A dog) and several puppets, all of which appear to simply ask Gina to sing a certain song or to learn lessons about friendship and such, all through the same songs.
I have no issues with repeated songs- it's just interesting to see that Gina herself (an actually alright singer) uses these as segues into other bits and newer songs. The only other thing worth mentioning here is the tour footage that plays at the end of a few episodes. This shows Gina and some of her friends touring and appealing to children, while a gospel hymm is sung in the background (you didnt think we wouldn't throw in the Bible SOMEWHERE, did you?).
As far as kid's shows go, even Bible shows, this isn't bad. I wouldn't go as far as to compare it to some of the other things aired on the channel, At the most, it's harmless singing with morals and religion thrown in. Harmless, that's the best way to describe this. Except maybe Mr. Pockets- I don't trust that clown.
3/5
-----------------------------------------
Little Buds
----------------------------------------
I'm just going to say it flat-out: BURN THIS. Burn the puppets, dismantle the set, and tell the children to get a news parody from something else (the Jelly News, perhaps, if you stick with the channel?). This is not the kind of thing a network should want to be affiliated with.
The show's plot? Heck if I know. Apparently this is a news network run by flowers, who maintain a standard television station until letters begin to attack. The rest of this 22-minute program is the alphabet. Literally. It just takes the single letter and displays examples for roughly 16 minutes. It's dull, tiring and overall unpleasant.
You know what this is? This is a Creepypasta waiting to happen. One of those little kid's shows that seems innocent until freaky stuff begins to happen and the kids begin to act crazy . I half expect to see a still frame of these hideous flower puppets bleeding from their hyper-realistic eyes.
0/5
----------------------------------------
Aardvark to Zucchini
-----------------------------------------
HELLO, HUMANS. AM NORMAL AARDVARK. AM NOT DEMON. ME HAVE FRIEND ZUCCHINI. IT NORMAL ZUCCHINI, NOT DEMON, LIKE ME, AARDVARK. YOU WATCH SHOW AND LEARN ALPHABETS. WE TEACH YOU LETTERS NOW. YOU SAY GOODNIGHT PRAYER WITH US AT NOON. IS GOOD IDEA. AM NOT DEMON, TO MAKE SURE. HELLO, SMALL CHILDREN! MAY I LOOK AT YOUR SPINAL FLUIDS, JUST FOR A MOMENT?
Hail The Dark One/5
----------------------------------------
Sunday, December 6, 2015
The Critical Frog: The Good Dinosaur
The funny thing about being picky is that the simplest things can distract from the more important ones. For some reason, any little misstep can force me into relentlessly seeking out weak points in a film or show. And when it's something I've tangled with before, it begins to get a little grating. Thus, we have yet another entry into the "Dinosaurs Who Shouldn't Be Able To Talk But Do" category of distractions.
When I reviewed Walking with Dinosaurs a while back, I praised the CGI dinosaurs and landscapes, and it's easy to see why: as much as I dislike talking dinosaurs and modern humor in an environment that has no need for them, the aforementioned flop at least had wonderfully realistic imagery. The difference is, however, that the dinosaurs used here stick out like a sore thumb against the photo-realistic backdrops. Combine that with a plot reminiscent of Ice Age and you have The Good Dinosaur.
The Good Dinosaur is a film about how a cowardly dinosaur and a feral human child bond, while practically everything in the prehistoric world attempts to kill them. Aside from the normal wild dinosaurs (which for some reason are all either crazy or have southern accents), the roster of enemies includes poorly-placed rocks, branches, lightning and the occasional flat surface to trip over.
I'm not kidding: more than half of the problems in the film stem from our main dinosaur Arlo's apparent lack of depth perception and self-preservation combined with his enormous cowardice. Every moment, Arlo is tripping into something, falling off a ledge, or getting scraped up after taking a panic-induced fall. This guy could give Fluttershy a run for most timid character.
Is it me, or do all of these modern dinosaur films have this same issue? Timid main characters, repetitive story, and sometimes weak humor interfering with the otherwise nice animation. The difference between The Good Dinosaur and the previous entrant in this category (Walking With Dinosaurs) is that the former has a better story arc and humor, while the latter offers better dinosaur animation.
My huge issue with this film, however, comes not from the animations, but from what it's used to show sometimes. For a kid's film, there is a LOT of shots of Arlo getting injured. Scrapes, bruises and cuts are clearly visible all the time. I nearly left the theater when Spot the feral child rips off a large insect's head on screen, revealing the flesh underneath. Who wants to pay to see things be decapitated?
OVERALL RATING: 5/10
--------------------------------------
A few further notes:
-Sometime later in the film, our hero and his pet come across a T-Rex family, who share stories of how they received scars. The elder Rex explains that he got into a fight with a crocodile, where he drowned the reptile in his own blood. Can we just skip the 'Homeward Bound' story and see that incident instead? It sounds much more interesting.
-Are ALL cattle rustlers in films hillbillies? Don't hillbillies have anything better to do in film?
-Are the Pteranodons in the film, who flock together, give themselves strange names, and follow the belief that 'The Storm Provides' cultists, or a commune? I'm getting serious Our Town flashbacks here, and it doesn't help that the song is still stuck in my head.
-The 'First Snow of the Winter', that apparently is so dangerous, really has no effect on much. I wouldn't go as far as to call it the deadly 'First Snow' as much as the 'Mildly Annoying Half-Inch of Powder'. Here in Colorado, to call that dangerous would be laughable.
When I reviewed Walking with Dinosaurs a while back, I praised the CGI dinosaurs and landscapes, and it's easy to see why: as much as I dislike talking dinosaurs and modern humor in an environment that has no need for them, the aforementioned flop at least had wonderfully realistic imagery. The difference is, however, that the dinosaurs used here stick out like a sore thumb against the photo-realistic backdrops. Combine that with a plot reminiscent of Ice Age and you have The Good Dinosaur.
The Good Dinosaur is a film about how a cowardly dinosaur and a feral human child bond, while practically everything in the prehistoric world attempts to kill them. Aside from the normal wild dinosaurs (which for some reason are all either crazy or have southern accents), the roster of enemies includes poorly-placed rocks, branches, lightning and the occasional flat surface to trip over.
I'm not kidding: more than half of the problems in the film stem from our main dinosaur Arlo's apparent lack of depth perception and self-preservation combined with his enormous cowardice. Every moment, Arlo is tripping into something, falling off a ledge, or getting scraped up after taking a panic-induced fall. This guy could give Fluttershy a run for most timid character.
Is it me, or do all of these modern dinosaur films have this same issue? Timid main characters, repetitive story, and sometimes weak humor interfering with the otherwise nice animation. The difference between The Good Dinosaur and the previous entrant in this category (Walking With Dinosaurs) is that the former has a better story arc and humor, while the latter offers better dinosaur animation.
My huge issue with this film, however, comes not from the animations, but from what it's used to show sometimes. For a kid's film, there is a LOT of shots of Arlo getting injured. Scrapes, bruises and cuts are clearly visible all the time. I nearly left the theater when Spot the feral child rips off a large insect's head on screen, revealing the flesh underneath. Who wants to pay to see things be decapitated?
OVERALL RATING: 5/10
--------------------------------------
A few further notes:
-Sometime later in the film, our hero and his pet come across a T-Rex family, who share stories of how they received scars. The elder Rex explains that he got into a fight with a crocodile, where he drowned the reptile in his own blood. Can we just skip the 'Homeward Bound' story and see that incident instead? It sounds much more interesting.
-Are ALL cattle rustlers in films hillbillies? Don't hillbillies have anything better to do in film?
-Are the Pteranodons in the film, who flock together, give themselves strange names, and follow the belief that 'The Storm Provides' cultists, or a commune? I'm getting serious Our Town flashbacks here, and it doesn't help that the song is still stuck in my head.
-The 'First Snow of the Winter', that apparently is so dangerous, really has no effect on much. I wouldn't go as far as to call it the deadly 'First Snow' as much as the 'Mildly Annoying Half-Inch of Powder'. Here in Colorado, to call that dangerous would be laughable.
Friday, November 20, 2015
The Critical Frog: SOACN Act One
The time of year has finally come for my birthday, and this year's a big one: I'm finally 18, which means I finally have some freedom. And of course, how am I going to use it? By talking about things nobody cares about on the internet, of course!
I've been wanting to talk about the Smile of a Child Network for a while now, ever since I came across it accidentally during a session of channel flipping. May as well celebrate my birthday with a discussion that may anger people. I'm going to review EVERY SINGLE SHOW on this network, to try something new for a change.
First off, this isn't going to be a series of me attacking the network or it's devotion to religion. I really don't have an opinion on the subject of religious practice. I'll mention something if the religion gets extremely bigoted or heavy-handed, sure, but aside from that, I'll try to look past the Christian morals and overall basis and just analyze the shows on their quality in general. And let's start with the big one:
SMILE OF A CHILD: RocKidsTV
-----------------------------------------------
This was the first thing I saw from the Smile Of A Child Network, and what sparked my bizarre interest in it. Specifically, it's strange theme.
One would think RocKids would have a strong central theme in Space, particularly Rockets. I mean, Rocket kind of sounds and looks like RocKids, right? But, no. The show's central theme- aside from religion- is rocks. Something tells me the developers were out of ideas for the night....
Putting aside the rocky setup, the show mainly takes the form of a stock late show- we have our host, our musical guests, and our news articles, with the general basis of all being religion-based. These mini shows include the Jelly News with Buck Denver, Clive and Ian's Wonder Blimp Of Knowledge, and Pirate Etiquette With Captain Pete, which all feature puppets. Special musical guests are also present, but instead of making these characters original, they are all cookie cutter bands.
The guests on the show often include the Beat-Rocks (The Beatles), The Beach Stones (Beach Boys), and the God Rocks (every single teenage band ever), who's main singing strategies all seem to be 'take a quote from the bible and putting it to music. These songs and interviews are tied into the main show with narration from the host, Jasper Jayrock, and various plays/cartoons/puppet shows.
The main focus of the show is clearly supposed to be the God Rocks, being the stars and subjects of every cartoon, but to be honest, I'm not too fond of them. The team consists of Chip, Jem, Splinter and Carb (Because they're rocks, guys, remember?), who go on day-to-day adventures while relentlessly quoting religious stories. This is all well and good- I don't expect a religious show to not bring it up time and time again- but the animation is just so choppy and bizarre at times that it's hard to focus on the topics and be more focused on the lines surrounding every character.
Does a show like this really deserve to be hated on? To an extent. Like I said, there's not too much reason to call out a religious program for being religious. There's some stuff here that could actually work with a little more direction (Pirate Etiquette With Captain Pete can actually be pretty funny), but the show just tries so hard to be cool and modern that half of the time it ends up falling on it's face. A lot of this comes from the animation and overall performance by the God Rocks, but everything tries to come together without a sense of theme and a center. Like it or not, the show just won't cash in as big as it tries to. "Spikin' " is not going to be a household term anytime soon.
Does this theme appeal to anyone? Maud Pie, maybe. But unfortunately, this one needs to go stay back at the rock farm until it chisels out something good from the block of good and bad.
3/5 (Frog Rate-O-Meter has been adjusted for religious programming. We're not putting this stuff on the same level I normally grade with.)
---------------------
Raggs
---------------------
I like to consider myself a person with decent musical taste. Growing up, I was never really into hip-hop or pop music like a lot of other kids my age. I was always into the more somber stuff, and it shows- my taste for alternative music has only grown over the years. Musicians like Voltaire can offer meaningful lyrics without having to sacrifice quality of the music, and lead to a lot of replay value (I've listened to the Cruxshadows' "Valkyrie" too many times to count). And that's not to say that kids music can't have the same effects on people- in fact, some songs in films and shows for kids can be better than what the radio has to offer. The simple melody in the beginning of "Up" or the powerful ballad of "Let It Go" can really change a film for the better, as well as be great musical pieces on their own (Insert obligatory Rainbow Rocks reference here). The music played in 'Raggs' is not an example of this.
Costumes without accurate mouths have always bugged me for some reason. it always strikes some sort of foul note whenever the voices don't match up to the lips. Couple that with music and you have a sight to behold in bizarre awe.
This is a show about dogs that undergo normal everyday problems while interwoven with musical numbers and interviews with children. The five dogs are all people in costumes, which is fine, but it's one of those circumstances where the mouths don't line up with the words. What better way to point this out than showing how odd it looks during a musical number? Even Barney got that one right, and I'm fairly certain he's a communist.
Honestly, the interviews with children would be the only reason to watch this. The dogs have a cat (is that technically slavery?) named Dumpster, who's sole purpose seems to be to insult the dogs and proclaim his love for delicacy called "Stinky Fish". He does get to interview the small children, and I have to admit, the kids responding to simple questions (and how Dumpster responds to the answers) can be funny at times. Aside from that, it's your standard Bear In The Big Blue House- although to be fair, Bear's mouth could move properly.
2/5
----------------------------
Little Women/Swiss Family Robinson: The Animated Series(es)
----------------------------
I know what you're all thinking: What the heck are shows based on two classic books doing on a bible children's network? And my answer is, I don't quite know. I guess someone really liked the idea of putting them on a christian network.
To be frank, It's not really my place to talk about the plots here. It's literally just the stories of the Swiss Family Robinson and Little Women, but put to animation. And as far as the animation on this channel goes, it really isn't that bad.
3/5
---------------------------
The Story Keepers
--------------------------
Could my eyes deceive me? Is it....It is! Finally, some good animation!
As much as I've been ripping on a few of these things, I do have to give some credit where credit is due. RockKids TV did try to do a lot of variety, and some shows I'll talk about later had a lot of effort put in. This is one I have to applaud, for being one of the closest things to something I'd actually watch on the network.
The show is about a group of people in the BC times, who tell the stories of the bible. This poses a problem because they are forced to be in hiding, and as such, 'keep' the stories for those who wish to hear them.
While the plot isn't much, the animation is what gives this a good rating: it's very crisp and clean, and the voice actors aren't bad either. I really can't talk much about this (being literally just animated bible stuff), but it's not bad. If you're interested in this sort of thing, then give it a shot.
The guests on the show often include the Beat-Rocks (The Beatles), The Beach Stones (Beach Boys), and the God Rocks (every single teenage band ever), who's main singing strategies all seem to be 'take a quote from the bible and putting it to music. These songs and interviews are tied into the main show with narration from the host, Jasper Jayrock, and various plays/cartoons/puppet shows.
The main focus of the show is clearly supposed to be the God Rocks, being the stars and subjects of every cartoon, but to be honest, I'm not too fond of them. The team consists of Chip, Jem, Splinter and Carb (Because they're rocks, guys, remember?), who go on day-to-day adventures while relentlessly quoting religious stories. This is all well and good- I don't expect a religious show to not bring it up time and time again- but the animation is just so choppy and bizarre at times that it's hard to focus on the topics and be more focused on the lines surrounding every character.
Does a show like this really deserve to be hated on? To an extent. Like I said, there's not too much reason to call out a religious program for being religious. There's some stuff here that could actually work with a little more direction (Pirate Etiquette With Captain Pete can actually be pretty funny), but the show just tries so hard to be cool and modern that half of the time it ends up falling on it's face. A lot of this comes from the animation and overall performance by the God Rocks, but everything tries to come together without a sense of theme and a center. Like it or not, the show just won't cash in as big as it tries to. "Spikin' " is not going to be a household term anytime soon.
Does this theme appeal to anyone? Maud Pie, maybe. But unfortunately, this one needs to go stay back at the rock farm until it chisels out something good from the block of good and bad.
3/5 (Frog Rate-O-Meter has been adjusted for religious programming. We're not putting this stuff on the same level I normally grade with.)
---------------------
Raggs
---------------------
I like to consider myself a person with decent musical taste. Growing up, I was never really into hip-hop or pop music like a lot of other kids my age. I was always into the more somber stuff, and it shows- my taste for alternative music has only grown over the years. Musicians like Voltaire can offer meaningful lyrics without having to sacrifice quality of the music, and lead to a lot of replay value (I've listened to the Cruxshadows' "Valkyrie" too many times to count). And that's not to say that kids music can't have the same effects on people- in fact, some songs in films and shows for kids can be better than what the radio has to offer. The simple melody in the beginning of "Up" or the powerful ballad of "Let It Go" can really change a film for the better, as well as be great musical pieces on their own (Insert obligatory Rainbow Rocks reference here). The music played in 'Raggs' is not an example of this.
Costumes without accurate mouths have always bugged me for some reason. it always strikes some sort of foul note whenever the voices don't match up to the lips. Couple that with music and you have a sight to behold in bizarre awe.
This is a show about dogs that undergo normal everyday problems while interwoven with musical numbers and interviews with children. The five dogs are all people in costumes, which is fine, but it's one of those circumstances where the mouths don't line up with the words. What better way to point this out than showing how odd it looks during a musical number? Even Barney got that one right, and I'm fairly certain he's a communist.
Honestly, the interviews with children would be the only reason to watch this. The dogs have a cat (is that technically slavery?) named Dumpster, who's sole purpose seems to be to insult the dogs and proclaim his love for delicacy called "Stinky Fish". He does get to interview the small children, and I have to admit, the kids responding to simple questions (and how Dumpster responds to the answers) can be funny at times. Aside from that, it's your standard Bear In The Big Blue House- although to be fair, Bear's mouth could move properly.
2/5
----------------------------
Little Women/Swiss Family Robinson: The Animated Series(es)
----------------------------
I know what you're all thinking: What the heck are shows based on two classic books doing on a bible children's network? And my answer is, I don't quite know. I guess someone really liked the idea of putting them on a christian network.
To be frank, It's not really my place to talk about the plots here. It's literally just the stories of the Swiss Family Robinson and Little Women, but put to animation. And as far as the animation on this channel goes, it really isn't that bad.
3/5
---------------------------
The Story Keepers
--------------------------
Could my eyes deceive me? Is it....It is! Finally, some good animation!
As much as I've been ripping on a few of these things, I do have to give some credit where credit is due. RockKids TV did try to do a lot of variety, and some shows I'll talk about later had a lot of effort put in. This is one I have to applaud, for being one of the closest things to something I'd actually watch on the network.
The show is about a group of people in the BC times, who tell the stories of the bible. This poses a problem because they are forced to be in hiding, and as such, 'keep' the stories for those who wish to hear them.
While the plot isn't much, the animation is what gives this a good rating: it's very crisp and clean, and the voice actors aren't bad either. I really can't talk much about this (being literally just animated bible stuff), but it's not bad. If you're interested in this sort of thing, then give it a shot.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Frog Thoughts: What I've Learned About Bad Cartoon Makers (From Watching Their Shows)
It's commonly said that the worst thing about being a judge, or by that extension a critic, is the backlash. No matter what you say, what you do, someone is going to have a problem. And this is fine: everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it does sound ridiculous. The best thing one can do in a situation like this is to drop the subject and try to make his project better in response. And then, there's this:
That's the real tweet sent out by the voice actor for Peanut, a character from the new Disney show Pickle and Peanut, in response to cartoon critics who had several complaints about the show. The main one of these criticisms is that it is, for lack of nicer terms, the show's release on Disney is similar to throwing a rotten egg on top of a fillet mignon.
Yes, the Disney channel has had some flops over the years, but much like Cartoon Network, a wave of talented and creative shows has been slowly pulling at out of stupidity and towards a new golden age. Shows like Adventure Time and Gravity Falls have had a massive impact on the medium and have inspired cartoonists to create some really good shows. And then there's Pickle and Peanut.
It's a bit sad when you can get the same effects the animators of Pickle and Peanut use by using photoshop to doodle some eyes on a stock image of a peanut. It's even sadder when you realize that this is on the channel that hosts Star Vs. The Forces Of Evil.
As Dave Barry once wrote, sometimes there is a story that needs it's own article. And for a critic such as myself, the idea of a professional voice actor on a terrible cartoon reacting in such a way is a gift from above. It gives me an opportunity to not only point out the stupidity of the situation, but to say a few things about the bad cartoon industry. From the interviews, posts, and comparisons, I've been able to divine a few basic theories about the people who make bad cartoons. Specifically.....
4: They Have No Clue How To Handle Criticism
--------------------------------------------------------------
No matter what. every show or film will at some point face criticism. It's just a part of the industry. Even if a fantastic show does something slightly out of the ordinary, it's bound to have some backlash. The simple act of giving your character wings can destroy an entire fan base. So, what do you do to get the lost back?
Simple, you make it better. You listen to the critics, and buff your show accordingly. Remember the huge leap between Shrek and Shrek 2? That was a great example of this. by listening to the critics and adapting to their needs, shows can be better and offer more widespread appeal. Or, you could just take the Teen Titans Go (Otherwise known as Show Made Exclusively To Spite Me) route and make an entire episode trying to insult the people who want more from them. This is ironic, as the people it's trying to insult probably know more about the source material than the writers themselves.
I could go on and on about how much I dislike the new show, but I'm writing enough as it is. Let's just take a look at their argument.
According to the episode "The Return of Slade" (which had absolutely no Slade whatsoever- I can't tell if that's a good thing or a bad thing), the main issue comes from the critic's refusal to grow up. As the show believes, we are forgetting what made the show cool to us in the first place and letting nostalgia cloud our vision. Apparently, the threat of a nostalgic feeling and better shows is enough to drive the show's creators to anger. Enough to base an entire episode as a thinly-veiled insult rather than, I dunno, put more effort into the show itself.
It's always a load of fun to see reactions like this, but even better to witness in person. Ironically, the character of a person can affect how people see their cartoons. I recently had a chance to talk with a storyboard editor (Luke Ski, of Mighty Magiswords) and found him a kind, if somewhat shy person. And after talking with him (and getting a drawing of Vambre, of course), I do see how his sense of comedy works into the development of his show. In a way, the behavior of a person ties directly into the behavior of their characters. And if we reverse this (in saying that the characters are representations of the people who made them), it's fair to say that the humor and characters from these new series take much of their juvenile acts directly from those who made them. And from what I've seen, it looks like the theory remains true.
3: They Don't Understand Simple Jobs
------------------------------------------------
From the three episodes I gave Pickle and Peanut (my "trial run", if you will), I was able to discover that they hold steady jobs in a grocery store. As a guy who works in a grocery store myself (Safeway represent), I can firmly say that the show's depiction of store work is full of lies.
To date, the most trouble experienced by me and my co-workers came in the forms of major scoldings and reports, usually with very stern looks and extra shopping cart duty. These punishments have, in the past, been results of:
-Clocking in five minutes early,
-Stepping into the break room to take a sip of cola before resuming duties,
-Attempting to have a discussion about Dragon Ball Z during a slow afternoon with a fellow clerk,
-Starting a petition to ban Rob Schneider films from being stocked (If we're a quality store, why do we have these?), and my personal favorite,
-Taking the handicap motorized cart for 'joyrides' in the parking lot.
These are all deserving of major outbursts by managers, but pale in comparison to the activities partaken by Pickle and Peanut. They steal company property, damage the store, and are directly responsible for practically all mishaps involved in the show. Many of these mishaps come directly from two sources: the main idiots and the grocery store's boss himself, who really should know better.
Most bad cartoons seem to fall into the same category of not portraying basic jobs: they feel as if the mere act of work is boring, and so need to make as much happen as possible to make up for it through the bumbling errors of the characters. Don't get me wrong, it is a good thing to build excitement (Regular Show takes it's boring workplace setting and has it slowly build up beyond the characters' control), but at least attempt to portray the place realistically. If people think working at a grocer is like Pickle and Peanut portrays, they're going to be mighty surprised. Not because of the strict bosses and sometimes exhausting work, but because the shopping cart who sings KISS that we have in one of our training videos is more amusing than anything in the show. (On a side note, I'm now anticipating a spin-off of nothing but Gene Simmons pushing carts around a parking lot for thirty minutes. It'd still be better than Kiss Meets The Phantom Of The Park.
2: Deep Down, They Feel Like They Are Doing The Right Thing
---------------------------
The thing a lot of people forget about critics is that they all have their own opinions, and these can often clash with the opinions of people- including themselves. I can't count how many times that I've ended up going back on my own opinion just as new reasoning comes to life. Factors like age and personal experience can definitely sway an opinion (When I was younger, I hated Where The Wild Things Are as a film. Now, It's one of my absolute favorites just because I grew up and now understand what it represented.), as can any personal effort portrayed. The idea that effort exerted by people should have a direct effect on the finished product's quality is a well-respected one.
The prime thought process of the bad cartoon comes from the effort they put in and how it resonates with the target audience.
The way they see it, because some kids have poor attention spans, it would be easier to just make something short and lackluster to snag their attention while saving the better material for adults. This way, the younger demographic is entertained while the older ones have some time away. This makes sense, right?
Only it doesn't. What's the point of producing a cartoon that kids and adults will watch together without any effort? There's a fine difference between holding attention and giving enjoyment. and people need to understand this.
But, according to the creators of bad cartoons, there's some sort of leniency to be given when a kid's show is bad. See, in their minds, kid's attention spans don't deserve the same attention that adults do. This means that they feel they are doing a good thing making sub-par animation. In some respects, I can understand where they're coming from. But.....
1: They Are Not
----------------------
Where the makers of the cartoons feel they are doing a good thing in limiting the time spent on their products, it's safe to say they aren't. It may seem like complete bias (I was raised as a Teen Titans kid), but there's a huge difference in quality in most of this animation.
You want my final opinion? Here we go.
Jimmy Pemberton, you slipped up. There's a difference between retaliation and just plain stupidity. And insulting the people who only want to make your show worth watching falls into the latter category. You want to respond like this? Okay. Just don't go blaming us if Pickle and Peanut goes down the garbage chute.
That's the real tweet sent out by the voice actor for Peanut, a character from the new Disney show Pickle and Peanut, in response to cartoon critics who had several complaints about the show. The main one of these criticisms is that it is, for lack of nicer terms, the show's release on Disney is similar to throwing a rotten egg on top of a fillet mignon.
Yes, the Disney channel has had some flops over the years, but much like Cartoon Network, a wave of talented and creative shows has been slowly pulling at out of stupidity and towards a new golden age. Shows like Adventure Time and Gravity Falls have had a massive impact on the medium and have inspired cartoonists to create some really good shows. And then there's Pickle and Peanut.
It's a bit sad when you can get the same effects the animators of Pickle and Peanut use by using photoshop to doodle some eyes on a stock image of a peanut. It's even sadder when you realize that this is on the channel that hosts Star Vs. The Forces Of Evil.
As Dave Barry once wrote, sometimes there is a story that needs it's own article. And for a critic such as myself, the idea of a professional voice actor on a terrible cartoon reacting in such a way is a gift from above. It gives me an opportunity to not only point out the stupidity of the situation, but to say a few things about the bad cartoon industry. From the interviews, posts, and comparisons, I've been able to divine a few basic theories about the people who make bad cartoons. Specifically.....
4: They Have No Clue How To Handle Criticism
--------------------------------------------------------------
No matter what. every show or film will at some point face criticism. It's just a part of the industry. Even if a fantastic show does something slightly out of the ordinary, it's bound to have some backlash. The simple act of giving your character wings can destroy an entire fan base. So, what do you do to get the lost back?
Simple, you make it better. You listen to the critics, and buff your show accordingly. Remember the huge leap between Shrek and Shrek 2? That was a great example of this. by listening to the critics and adapting to their needs, shows can be better and offer more widespread appeal. Or, you could just take the Teen Titans Go (Otherwise known as Show Made Exclusively To Spite Me) route and make an entire episode trying to insult the people who want more from them. This is ironic, as the people it's trying to insult probably know more about the source material than the writers themselves.
I could go on and on about how much I dislike the new show, but I'm writing enough as it is. Let's just take a look at their argument.
According to the episode "The Return of Slade" (which had absolutely no Slade whatsoever- I can't tell if that's a good thing or a bad thing), the main issue comes from the critic's refusal to grow up. As the show believes, we are forgetting what made the show cool to us in the first place and letting nostalgia cloud our vision. Apparently, the threat of a nostalgic feeling and better shows is enough to drive the show's creators to anger. Enough to base an entire episode as a thinly-veiled insult rather than, I dunno, put more effort into the show itself.
It's always a load of fun to see reactions like this, but even better to witness in person. Ironically, the character of a person can affect how people see their cartoons. I recently had a chance to talk with a storyboard editor (Luke Ski, of Mighty Magiswords) and found him a kind, if somewhat shy person. And after talking with him (and getting a drawing of Vambre, of course), I do see how his sense of comedy works into the development of his show. In a way, the behavior of a person ties directly into the behavior of their characters. And if we reverse this (in saying that the characters are representations of the people who made them), it's fair to say that the humor and characters from these new series take much of their juvenile acts directly from those who made them. And from what I've seen, it looks like the theory remains true.
3: They Don't Understand Simple Jobs
------------------------------------------------
From the three episodes I gave Pickle and Peanut (my "trial run", if you will), I was able to discover that they hold steady jobs in a grocery store. As a guy who works in a grocery store myself (Safeway represent), I can firmly say that the show's depiction of store work is full of lies.
To date, the most trouble experienced by me and my co-workers came in the forms of major scoldings and reports, usually with very stern looks and extra shopping cart duty. These punishments have, in the past, been results of:
-Clocking in five minutes early,
-Stepping into the break room to take a sip of cola before resuming duties,
-Attempting to have a discussion about Dragon Ball Z during a slow afternoon with a fellow clerk,
-Starting a petition to ban Rob Schneider films from being stocked (If we're a quality store, why do we have these?), and my personal favorite,
-Taking the handicap motorized cart for 'joyrides' in the parking lot.
These are all deserving of major outbursts by managers, but pale in comparison to the activities partaken by Pickle and Peanut. They steal company property, damage the store, and are directly responsible for practically all mishaps involved in the show. Many of these mishaps come directly from two sources: the main idiots and the grocery store's boss himself, who really should know better.
Most bad cartoons seem to fall into the same category of not portraying basic jobs: they feel as if the mere act of work is boring, and so need to make as much happen as possible to make up for it through the bumbling errors of the characters. Don't get me wrong, it is a good thing to build excitement (Regular Show takes it's boring workplace setting and has it slowly build up beyond the characters' control), but at least attempt to portray the place realistically. If people think working at a grocer is like Pickle and Peanut portrays, they're going to be mighty surprised. Not because of the strict bosses and sometimes exhausting work, but because the shopping cart who sings KISS that we have in one of our training videos is more amusing than anything in the show. (On a side note, I'm now anticipating a spin-off of nothing but Gene Simmons pushing carts around a parking lot for thirty minutes. It'd still be better than Kiss Meets The Phantom Of The Park.
2: Deep Down, They Feel Like They Are Doing The Right Thing
---------------------------
The thing a lot of people forget about critics is that they all have their own opinions, and these can often clash with the opinions of people- including themselves. I can't count how many times that I've ended up going back on my own opinion just as new reasoning comes to life. Factors like age and personal experience can definitely sway an opinion (When I was younger, I hated Where The Wild Things Are as a film. Now, It's one of my absolute favorites just because I grew up and now understand what it represented.), as can any personal effort portrayed. The idea that effort exerted by people should have a direct effect on the finished product's quality is a well-respected one.
The prime thought process of the bad cartoon comes from the effort they put in and how it resonates with the target audience.
The way they see it, because some kids have poor attention spans, it would be easier to just make something short and lackluster to snag their attention while saving the better material for adults. This way, the younger demographic is entertained while the older ones have some time away. This makes sense, right?
Only it doesn't. What's the point of producing a cartoon that kids and adults will watch together without any effort? There's a fine difference between holding attention and giving enjoyment. and people need to understand this.
But, according to the creators of bad cartoons, there's some sort of leniency to be given when a kid's show is bad. See, in their minds, kid's attention spans don't deserve the same attention that adults do. This means that they feel they are doing a good thing making sub-par animation. In some respects, I can understand where they're coming from. But.....
1: They Are Not
----------------------
Where the makers of the cartoons feel they are doing a good thing in limiting the time spent on their products, it's safe to say they aren't. It may seem like complete bias (I was raised as a Teen Titans kid), but there's a huge difference in quality in most of this animation.
You want my final opinion? Here we go.
Jimmy Pemberton, you slipped up. There's a difference between retaliation and just plain stupidity. And insulting the people who only want to make your show worth watching falls into the latter category. You want to respond like this? Okay. Just don't go blaming us if Pickle and Peanut goes down the garbage chute.
Monday, October 5, 2015
The Critical Frog: Equestria Girls 3: Friendship Games
Sorry for the delay on this- there's been a lot going on for me right now (school, work, family, etc.) and I haven't had as much time to update. But I promise I'll do more as soon as I can. In the meantime, it' good to be back. And what better way to kick off the return than with another review that people hate me for? This is Friendship Games.
Ah, the Equestria Girls series. What a mixed bag these films are. On one hand, I want to praise them for their good physical comedy, stunning animation, and phenomenal music. But on the other, they suffer from slightly lackluster story and quite a bit of limitation from the typical MLP story arcs. Despite these flaws, I gave the first EG film a 5/10 and it's sequel a slightly higher 6 (but, on closer inspection, I suppose I should have rated them a little higher). I praised the first for introducing the story and the second for having incredible musical numbers. But how does the third stack up compared to the musical prowess of the second? Well, before that, we should get into the plot.
Does anybody remember when I discussed the main plot hole in Equestira Girls 1? About the human version of Twilight Sparkle? Maybe this quote will help:
"When Pinkie said there was a twin (mentioned above), did she mean there was another Twilight Sparkle in that world? I mean, if it was a parallel universe, there would need to be a copy of her in this world as well. Did the human Twilight know anything about this counterpart? Did she just temporarily disappear from the Earth while another version of her roamed free in the world? I would love to see the actual human Twilight`s reaction to all this when she comes back to school."
-The Critical Frog, July 2014
I hope somebody picks up the phone, because I totally called it.
Yes, the third film sees the reappearance of the human version of Twilight Sparkle (that has no clue as to what happened previously) who comes to the area to investigate the strange forces nearby. And just in time, too: it is time for the Friendship Games, a sporting event that pits the heroes' Canterlot High against their arch rivals, Crystal Prep (obviously a reference to the Crystal Empire),who are led by their Headmistress and Dean of Students, who for some reason is the humanized version of Princess Miamore Cadenza. Surely the new Twilight will be able to assist. Unfortunately, human Twilight will be unable to assist Canterlot in breaking their losing streak. This is probably because she herself is a student of Crystal Prep.
Canterlot High's all-star team consists of the main characters, of course, and several favored background characters (Derpy, Lyra and Sweetie Drop.....I mean, Bonbon), with reformed villain and top-tier waifu Sunset Shimmer as the team captain. Crystal Prep's team takes orders directly from the Headmistress, and consists of the school's best and brightest, Twilight included.
But, of course, no EG movie is complete without magical shenanigans. You see, human Twilight (who I'm just going to call Smarty Pants) has developed a device that is capable of absorbing energy from Equestria, and by extension the heroes, and draining them of magic. This causes the magic to go haywire, and as such this causes havoc during the games (the likes of which include archery, roller-skating, motocross, and other such activities). It's up to the Mane 5 (and Sunset) to figure out what is causing the magic to go crazy and help Smarty Pants discover the meaning of friendship.
The Headmistress, however, has her own plans. Smarty Pants needs her approval to recieve a scholarship to Everton college (hopefully in a forest, with Zecora as the dean- seriously, why isnt she in an EG film yet?), and the Headmistress won't give it to her unless Smarty Pants decimates the competition at the games. This becomes a problem because Smarty Pants is terrible at sports.
I'm sure you get the gist of the film by now: the two teams, the Wondercolts and Shadowbolts, compete in various events whilst avoiding magical mishap, all while Smarty Pants is pressured by her teammates to unleash the magic stored in her device. This is all well and good, with a lot of tension from both sides coming up to the surface (Sunset Shimmer snaps, and it's actually pretty odd to see her angry again after her reformation), but how is the music?
My working theory is that Daniel Ingram, the composer of MLP music, has an explosive collar latched to his neck that will detonate if he ever makes a song that is less than 'good'. This is why all of the songs he has composed are wonderful. He doesn't want to take any chances.
Really, do I even have to say that the songs here are good? This is the guy who composed Under Our Spell, Welcome to the Show, and Tricks up my Sleeve. I don't think I need to say much else. (Wait a minute, those are all from the same film.......) My personal favorite here is the games fight song, sung from the points of both Canterlot and Crystal Prep. It's intense and shows the differences and similarities of each side's determination, with Smarty Pants delivering a great solo bit. I wouldn't call it the greatest pony song (Rainbow Rocks is still a thing), but it's a great tune to set up the games.
But overall, does the third Equestria Girls film match the first or second in either quality? I'm going to have to say it's in the middle. Don;t get me wrong, I'm all over it, but there's just a lot of things that seem glossed over or completely ignored (Where are the Sirens? I want more Sirens.). The concept of magic tearing into both worlds comes across as unfinished, and extremely strange. I wouldn't go as far as to call it the worst Equestria Girls- in fact, it has a lot of one-ups on the first in terms of character (Sunset Shimmer and Smarty Pants have interesting story arcs)- but it doesn't surpass Rainbow Rocks in the song department which propels it to the top of my list. It's good for an EG film, certainly not bad, but it does leave a little to be desired. Here's hoping for Equestria Girls 4.
OVERALL RATING: 6/10
------------------------------------
I have a few little questions. Nothing big, just some plot things.
-Shining Armor appears in the film too. He's still Twilight's brother. Did the whole Crystal Empire story arc already take place? Is Cadance Twilight's sister yet?
-Does this mean King Sombra and the Changelings are canon in the human universe? I half expect Sombra to be that teacher who constantly threatens to send you to the office, yet never works up the courage to do it. At least then he'd be like the show.
-Lyra and Sweetie......Bonbon are in this universe, and they display the same affection for each other as they do in the pony world. Are they...in some sort of relationship?
-Does this world have a Discord? And if so, where is he?
Well, back to thinking, I guess.
Friday, September 4, 2015
The Critical Frog: Pixels
Notes jotted down during a disappointing screening of Pixels:
1: Is this a "Hotel Transylvania" Adam Sandler flick or a "Jack and Jill" Adam Sandler flick?
2: A product plug in the first five minutes=bad film
3: Doesn't Kevin James as the president have more important things to do than hang around with drunken loser Adam Sandler? Pretty sure there were some things going on in the Middle East right about now.....
4: The aliens using video games should have taken a look at our modern stuff before deciding to attack with such old tech. In an industry that gave us Shadow of The Colossus, God Of War, Asura's Wrath and the Metroid series, I'm pretty sure they could do more damage than some 8-bit crab aliens.
5: Sometime earlier in the film, Sandler takes a gun and flawlessly blasts away a Centipede from the sky, despite only playing the game. How does being good at Centipede make you a sharpshooter? If I get a good score on a dating sim, does that mean I can seduce women in real life?
6: Custer's Revenge. I'm just sayin'.
7: If everything the aliens summon is hostile, why do they challenge them to games and give the heroes prizes? This isn't the Hunger Games, just warp in an army of pixel monsters and destroy them.
8: Spilled drink! Must acquire refill. Wait until next obligatory love scene.
9: Upon arrival home, play Huniepop. Then attempt to hit on real girl to see if the logic of Pixels works.
10: Is there no tournament rule against inputting cheat codes? Life is not so easily bypassed.
11: This movie sucks.
12: EG3 Movie premieres 29th! Make sure to schedule time around it. Pony time first, work time second.
1: Is this a "Hotel Transylvania" Adam Sandler flick or a "Jack and Jill" Adam Sandler flick?
2: A product plug in the first five minutes=bad film
3: Doesn't Kevin James as the president have more important things to do than hang around with drunken loser Adam Sandler? Pretty sure there were some things going on in the Middle East right about now.....
4: The aliens using video games should have taken a look at our modern stuff before deciding to attack with such old tech. In an industry that gave us Shadow of The Colossus, God Of War, Asura's Wrath and the Metroid series, I'm pretty sure they could do more damage than some 8-bit crab aliens.
5: Sometime earlier in the film, Sandler takes a gun and flawlessly blasts away a Centipede from the sky, despite only playing the game. How does being good at Centipede make you a sharpshooter? If I get a good score on a dating sim, does that mean I can seduce women in real life?
6: Custer's Revenge. I'm just sayin'.
7: If everything the aliens summon is hostile, why do they challenge them to games and give the heroes prizes? This isn't the Hunger Games, just warp in an army of pixel monsters and destroy them.
8: Spilled drink! Must acquire refill. Wait until next obligatory love scene.
9: Upon arrival home, play Huniepop. Then attempt to hit on real girl to see if the logic of Pixels works.
10: Is there no tournament rule against inputting cheat codes? Life is not so easily bypassed.
11: This movie sucks.
12: EG3 Movie premieres 29th! Make sure to schedule time around it. Pony time first, work time second.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)