#Perezoso Doom

[skipygmod]

Paid review by the Translator

And here we are; it's time to review one of the most popular cartoon franchises in existence. As many people know, this franchise has stayed static as time went by, so I promise I'll try to be less repetitious as possible.

Yet, one has to admire the vigour of a franchise that has 80 years of life, is still releasing more material in the present day. That's almost a century of existence.

Of course, the original one from 1940 to 1958, the Hanna-Barbera era, has a certain advantage of a novelty for being the first one. The premise is pretty simple, a cat chases a mouse, and some violence happens first. An ambiguous premise can be versatile because it doesn't have so many limitations. There are many ways of executing a concept that can be said in one line.

So, the execution is central; the writers had to think in the most creative way when it's about to execute this. And while it's true that the movie-budget animation helped that a lot, plus the characters' expressive faces or the occasional hilarious voices in a mute environment.

The truth is, without a funny script, none of these would be worth it. While the thing is about a cat who must catch a mouse, the magic falls back on how one can outsmart the other with a logic-defying plot twist in between.

With cartoon logic, from once in a while, the addition of certain side characters could diversify the situations so the thing wouldn't be so predictable. Also, the direction is outstanding because later, the show would get extensive in the soundtrack department.

Jazz music tried to emulate the situation on screen, something that has been emulated in Looney Tunes and even in works by Disney. Tom & Jerry is something you watch by turning off your brain and be taken by surprise with slapstick and the funny music composition going with the situations.

What's funny is that something so simple like that is not free of controversies. In more straitlaced times, the violence could be considered too excessive, especially using guns could alarm some people. And in more progressive times, the complaint could be the use of "racist" jokes, something normal of the time.

Gene Deitch's era is one of the weirdest of them all, an animated and written epoch in Czechoslovakia for some strange reason. Due to its low budget, the music was nonexistent and recycled from past eras. The backgrounds were psychedelic, the humans looked like scribbles, and the animation was noticeably rougher. The situations were also more surreal, absurd, and the biggest fuck-up, the aspect change on its violence. It's too brutal and many times undeserved in the context of the situation. Even as a kid, I felt uncomfortable watching this version. One thing is animals hurting each other. Another different thing is that a hysterical man is abusing a poor kitty, something shocking and tacky because it reminds us of animal abuse in real-life. It is not recommended for kids nor adults.

The Chuck Jones era comes in and, honestly, is not so different from the first one. Good thing because the 2nd era sucked. There's a change in the designs, facial expressions, larger diversity on the scenarios, but not going down the shitter like the past era. It's alright.

Next is the 2nd Hanna-Barbera era with "The Tom & Jerry Show" (1975); apparently, someone also complained about the show being so violent. So they made a friendlier version, where the leading duo is altruist friends, and they have adventures together. No comments, it's an inappropriate remark for the show's original spirit, and such risky ventures are pretty generic anyway.

The next era is Filmation's with "The Tom and Jerry Comedy Show". Not as offensive nor unpleasant as Gene Deitch's era, but the most uninspired so far. It is the definition of not giving a fuck. Obscene recycling, not only with its animation, by repeatedly repeating the same used footage in various episodes but also in the same instalment. But again, it had the impertinence of repeating situations and jokes shown in the original era. All that contributes to making the show tedious and boring to watch. I suppose this series gave the infamy of repetitive and a cash-grab. The previous eras typified having fun or at least decent music. Here is an electronic and synthetic hell of NeeiIIIIIeeeIIIIIEEeeeiiIII. It's an obnoxious and shitty show.

Hanna-Barbera would have a 3rd era with "Tom & Jerry Kids", another cash-grab, trying to continue with the chase formula and being tamer because of the complaints. It's much better than the previous era; at least it is more creative and tried to make humour with more things than violence, which you can give it credit. But because of how light it is, and with the original series, and being outshined with Droopy's segment, well, there's no reason to praise this show.

After Warner Bros. got the franchise's jurisdiction, we would acquire "The Tom & Jerry Tales," which's, of course, better than the other attempts. It captures the original spirit, and it's diverse in situations; it has a polished animation for television standards. I like how vivid the colour palette is, but the problem is at this point, many years of the franchise has passed, and nothing has innovated in this show. In a nutshell, excellent work for more of the same, so it becomes forgettable and just another reboot of the franchise.

And lastly, we got "The Tom and Jerry Show" (2014), which it's confusing because it got the same name as a show that I mentioned before. Again, more of the same with the bad addition of its animation is now Flash. The colours look pretty ugly without black lines because it seems more minimalistic.

There also were a few movies through the years, and the 1st one is characteristic because of how out-of-the-norm it is. The main characters talk, join forces to help a girl; there are conventional villains. It's a tedious and generic movie, and it doesn't have much with the franchise's spirit. But honestly, it got good intentions, and I don't think it's awful like many people say. I'm thankful for trying something different, and old rivals joining forces is a good concept. But it could be better in another context.

The rest of the movies are slightly more of the same, so I'll divide them in two. The bad ones are more of the same, and they're a bit uncreative with the situations. They try to shoehorn another franchise or a celebrity like Scooby-Doo's. They push Tom and Jerry into the background.

The best ones not only hold the original spirit of the show, with chasing, slapstick and appropriate music but also they try something else.

They were trying to twist and add characters or stories that make the scale have some importance.

Here is a list of all "Tom & Jerry" Instalments I watched; the ones that are in red are the ones I think are shit or merely dull. The green ones are decent for me, and blue is the best show and movie from the franchise, respectively. In all honesty, I admit I don't have much interest in and alike for the franchise in general, and even the best instalment wouldn't go beyond the score of 6. Do you think that someone with my ideologies would like to merely sit in a jazz show with something that would be considered animal torture? Call me whatever you wish; dogmatic, dull, drama-queen and I wouldn't change my mind that mindless violence is what sums up this franchise.

Some situations can be funny because of how human they are, and that's precisely why I like "Looney Tunes" more. The animals remind us more of humans than animals, so the violence doesn't shock me. They also talk, and the violence is more cartoony; that's why, as an adult; I don't feel so attached to "Tom & Jerry". Unlike some Looney Tunes shorts that I could be still watching and liking. That's all.

[preciousskipy]

Mario Party Doomplays

[azael1332excel]

La Profecia De Doomentio aka Perezoso Doom by Azael1332Ragnarok

[sweettooth-87]

Also to add. You can be a white supremacist without even being white.

Like here in the YouTube Spanish community we have a Nazi YouTube who is also a white supremacist who literally doesn't have any white or arian thing in his body. Like he legit said "my superior white body" and not to sound racist but he isn't like at all. Like idk what goes through his head that every time he goes to look himself in the mirror he sees his skin pale and white as shit.

Like his name is "perezoso Doom" you can look him up but most things will probably be in Spanish.

Just a reminder that you can (and should) support “stop Asian hate” and “BLM” without demeaning either groups!

We are not each other’s enemy, white supremacy is.

(I’m blocking anyone that says some ignorant/racist shit in the comments. I ain’t even gonna fight you. You don’t deserve my energy)

[gastronomusica]

🇻🇪🇻🇪🇻🇪🇻🇪🇻🇪🇻🇪🇻🇪🇻🇪🇻🇪🇻🇪🇻🇪🇻🇪🇻🇪🇻🇪🇻🇪🇻🇪 “Cocinar es como la música… un músico de jazz puede improvisar basándose en sus conocimientos. Él comprende cómo van juntas las cosas. Para un chef, allí es cuando la cocina realmente es emocionante” #charlietrotter "Es preciso recuperar y revitalizar la memoria, cultural, musical, culinaria. No podemos apelar únicamente al goce de los sentidos, sino que debemos dirigirnos al intelecto, o, de lo contrario, nuestro cerebro se convertirá en un órgano perezoso..." #santisantamaria 🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🍴🍽️🍽️🍽️🎶🎶🎶🎶🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎵🎶🎶🎶🎵🎵🎶🎶🎶🎵#cocinalibreyvive #ESCUCHAMUSICALIBREYVIVE #🤘 #diosconloscocineros #chefofinstagram #cheflife # #cocineroslocosenelmundo (en Doom, Punjab, Pakistan)

[skipygmod]

Art is somewhat hard to understand its concept from some, and no wonder because the misinformation about this term has been promoted. And because of that, there’s a constant debate about the topic.

Art is not a personal concept. When we talk about art, we’re not talking about tastes, but a discipline. And like any other discipline, it takes some logic and reasoning. I want to make sure why is there the mistake that art is ambiguous when it’s pretty clear. There are two categories about the definitions of art or preferably two ways to see art.

There’s the belief that art has an objective definition and the view that art is something personal. The 1st definition I’m mentioning appeared first, and because of that, it’ll be the one I’m talking about first.

While the artistic expression has existed since the first steps of humanity, that definition was given by old schools and when society stabilised art as a discipline because it never was considered as such.

METAPEDIA (100% trustworthy) Art is the use of ability or imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments or experiences that can be shared with others. Artistic pieces are the materialisation of human feelings, ideas or a worldview, that being carried to others, have the faculty to enrich their personalities. A town’s art is part of its culture and reflects its customs, believes and behaviours. Spanish Wikipedia (Not my cup of tea)

Art (From Latin ars, artis, and Greek τέχνη téchnē) is generally understood as any activity or product made with an aesthetic and also communicational purpose, where they express ideas, emotions and in general, a worldview through a diversity of resources, like sculptural, linguistic, resonant, corporal and mixed ones.

Definición.de Art (From Latin, ars) is the concept that encompasses all creations made by the human being to express a sensitive vision about the world, either real or imaginary. Through sculptural, linguistic or resonant resources, art allows expressing ideas, emotions, perceptions and sensations.

If we go to different sources, the definition is written with different words, but the idea is the same. Art is about material or experience of aesthetic nature, that materialises thoughts and feelings; and can be shared with others to enrich the personality.

Concept

The definition of art is open, subjective and debatable. There is no unanimous agreement between historians, philosophers or artists. Over time, there have been numerous definitions of art, including: “art is the right order of reason” (Thomas Aquinas); “Art is that which establishes its own rule” (Schiller); “Art is style” (Max Dvořák); “Art is the expression of society” (John Ruskin); “Art is the freedom of genius” (Adolf Loos); “Art is the idea” (Marcel Duchamp); “Art is the novelty” (Jean Dubuffet); "Art is action, life” (Joseph Beuys); “Art is everything that men call art” (Dino Formaggio); “Art is the lie that helps us see the truth” (Pablo Picasso) ; “Art is life, life is art (Wolf Vostell)”. The concept has changed over time: until the Renaissance, art was only considered the liberal arts; architecture, sculpture and painting were “crafts.” Art has always been one of the primary means of expression of the human being, through which it expresses its ideas and feelings, the way it relates to the world. Its function can vary from the most practical to the most ornamental; it can have religious or merely aesthetic content; it can be durable or transient. In the 20th century, even the material substrate was lost: Beuys said that life is a means of artistic expression, highlighting the vital aspect, the action. Thus, everyone is capable of being an artist.

The term art comes from the Latin ars and is the equivalent of the Greek term τέχνη (téchne, from which ‘technique’ comes from). Originally it applied to all man-made production and disciplines of know-how. Thus, artists were as much the cook, the gardener or the builder, as the painter or the poet. Over time, the Latin derivation (ars -> art) was used to designate the disciplines related to the arts of the aesthetic and the emotional. And the Greek derivation (téchne -> technical) for those disciplines that have to do with intellectual productions and articles of use. At present, it is difficult to find that both terms (art and technique) are confused or used as synonyms.

Attributes of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture (1769), by Anna Vallayer-Coster

What I don’t like about the Wikipedia article is that it contradicts itself. It starts with a clear definition with no ambiguities; later, it says that art is subjective because there’s not a consensus about its definition. That is because many experts have different ideas about what art is, which it’s absurd because the fact that someone understands something differently doesn’t deny the truth. It’s like saying that I understand math differently and mathematics have different interpretations, in other words, they’re subjective, which it’s ridiculous. Many examples of opposite ideas that Wikipedia put as an example don’t contradict each other. Because they are straightforward ideas, at most an expert prioritises more thought than another one. It’s not like one of them said that art could be anything, what is ugly or a person. They got certainty about what is more important in art, not that art is each thing.

Let’s analyse why the given definition makes sense, breaking down the features that compose it:

1. Art refers to some material or experience with an aesthetic character: 

That makes sense because it’s aesthetic; it makes it striking and presentable; also, it reflects effort. And reflecting something that requires effort it gives a meaning that art is a job, I mean if it’s not a job and anyone can do it, then why would there be artist or experts in the first place? Besides, if we take out the aesthetic feature in the definition, then horrible and harmful things would be considered art.

 2. It materialises ideas and feelings: 

That tells us that one of the foundations of art is it has to have a communicational function, I mean, art must have a meaning. That makes sense because if art has no meaning, what’s the point of doing it? So you can admire it? Why admiring it? What are your reasons to admire it if it doesn’t mean anything? Let’s leave out the communicational function of the definition. It has room to the fact that if something is beautiful, then it’s art. Beauty has a very high rank, so it would make the definition ambiguous.

3. It can be shared to enrich the personality: That’s extremely important because it gives art a purpose; every discipline must have a purpose. It’s part of the concept of the field; I mean schools exist to educate, science exists to make life easier and preserve the species. Science is a discipline, and art just like science has a purpose; to enrich the personality. Through art, you think, you learn something new. As said earlier, art is a materialisation of ideas and feelings, and that’s why consuming art is good. With art, you learn, art is emotional intelligence. Art just like science is something that has its reason to be, its logic; it’s merely another kind of logic, another type of intelligence.

The 2nd definition of art is something personal, and so; subjective appears after 1884 when the artistic movement; The Impressionism, which it was contemptuously criticised back then; was active. The impressionists, in defence of the critiques they got, they forced the idea that “Beauty was in the eyes of the beholder.”

That’s absurd to me because as I explained earlier, not just because someone has a different take, it doesn’t mean that an objective or relative truth cannot exist. I mean, you can say a sickness can be beautiful, but the thing is no matter how much you want to bend reality, it’s a fact that an illness is not beautiful in any way.

While I respect the impressionist movement to a certain point, and I respect its ideology to sacrifice complexity to leave colours to transmit emotions. I do consider that its new subjectivist definition of art was a terrible misfortune, because of that there’s a lot of confusion with a term that easily was well-defined through centuries. Not only that way of thinking brought lots of notoriously inferior artistic movements like Cubism.

In a nutshell, it’s a mediocre way of thinking that brought with itself misinformation, a decline of the idea of art, and a drop of quality.

My point reinforces with a simple comparison; you have to compare the works that were created with an objective definition of art, with the ones with a subjective definition.

Think for a moment how well-defined was the first definition, and how it demanded higher standards. Turning out in more outstanding excellence and compare it with the problems and ambiguities that brings the 2nd definition.

According to the ambiguous 2nd definition, art itself is ambiguous; then anything can be considered as art. It all depends on how it’s seen. If that’s true, it promotes overthinking; in other words, pretentiousness. You are praising something for its lack of content or its confusing/contradictory content. On the other hand, if we omit many features of the 1st definition, the idea of arts stops making sense. Let’s say art for some is what is beautiful, but it’s not necessary to be communicational. That means art lacks substance, and then painting green a wall is art, because the colour is beautiful.

If presenting just a beautiful colour is art, then it doesn’t make sense trying hard to create something with substance. Because a painting that took you days to perfect will be as praised as an empty portrait with no meaning.

Let’s consider art to be transmitting something, in other words, having a communicational function. Still, our message doesn’t need to be beautiful nor aesthetic. We’re saying that things like wishing death to somebody can be considered as art, or just communicating anything is art; even a conversation.

There’s a reason why a political speech shouldn’t be considered as art. The political address is communicational and discipline, but not an artistic one. I could go on for hours explaining why it doesn’t make sense to have a very flexible definition of art, and why the first one has better results.

The first one never created a creative standstill nor restricted the artists. It helps them to push themselves and reach excellence; the praise of their people aided them to create culture.

What is too abstract loses all meaning as art. I’m not saying that art shouldn’t have an ambiguous character in certain aspects, after all. As I said in the past, subtlety is one of the most of import components in good work. The difference between an ancient artwork and modern art nonsense is that the first one counts with recognisable elements that give you tools to interpret. While modern art is so abstract, that it’s not made up of anything, I mean, it’s not like it’s hard to understand, you’re so pretentious, that you see messages where there’s none. The work was done like that on purpose so people can fill the empty voids instead of taking credit from that job to the author, who has no conviction in what they want to express.

Minimalism is not a type of artistic technique; it’s a type of design. It works well, and it’s attractive for advertising or to spread information, not to have a pragmatic and crucial message because minimal art lacks eloquence.

The only thing that our free and modern definition of art is doing is to create confusion, lower the standards, and to ridicule the name of art. It’s because of things like a man taking a shit can be considered a piece of art nowadays, people who don’t know about art; dimmish its value. That’s why people don’t see art as a World Heritage Site, and it’s as important as science. And that’s why people who want to be artists to suffer, because their parents don’t want them to be artists. Because they consider something artistic work as a ridiculous job and has lesser value than other jobs.

We must start to understand what genuinely is art. We must begin to understand its importance, its work. We must change the popular mindset about art. When people see art is work, that it requires effort, dedication, sweat and tears. That art is quality work, and that is not something that is just held to personal perception, or taste. It’ll be the time when people will start respecting art again. Maybe then, the fans will be more demanding, business people will abide by franchises more. And they’ll set out to see that in the entertainment world there’s not just entertainment, but also art.

                                                                  -

We all know at this time and age whoever judges art with a postmodernist view is an idiot and a spoiled brat. I’m not going to argue with hicks anymore about something that they’re not interested in. Instead, I’ll address to people who are genuinely interested in art, no matter their reasons for their interest. Especially I’ll address to a group who is following and having me in mind.

So, my brothers, believe it or not, art can say more about the state of a society than a thousand words.

I have the hard belief that one sees GOOD art when a society is good and healthy.

And one sees bad art when a society that is not very intelligent or diseased.

After years of studying and being interested in the world’s history, this funny pattern repeats with no exception whatsoever. It’s by far one of the best ways to judge the quality of a nation.

Even though you want to believe it’s an issue about money, the truth is that it’s not the case. I want to point out that a wealthy society can produce art, that art is degenerate, sick and anti-nation.

That should not be surprising because art is the reflection of a person’s soul and spirit level. Degenerate art reflects a sick society and a disloyal state. Anyways, why is producing art so important anyway? My idea of saving the world has to do with anything artistic-wise.

As this curious study shows, our shitty modern buildings make us depressed, and no wonder.

They’re grey, similar and dull.

Capitalism and globalism destroyed that magic.

In ancient times, we were leaving our homes with excitement because we were feeling inspired by our surroundings.

Instead, now most people are doing jackshit and repeating a depressive routine.

In ancient times, our ancestors were admiring and praising the stars as their gods.

Now you can’t even see a single star because there is smog.

It’s like that simple joke of “Retro Always Wins” was never a joke, but actual reality. Not only art is getting shittier; life itself gets even shittier. Horrible shit happens every day, but nobody cares. Horrible shit occurred in ancient times, but people were inspired and giving their lives away. They cared about things, and they weren’t sedated in front of a screen. Modernity made us weak and epicurean. I’m not too fond of the modern world, and I’d love even to be a miserable hobo if I had the chance to live in those magnificent times. To be surrounded by those beautiful castles, that fine music. At the same time, I can see little kids playing outside.

Even the CIA admitted that the elites manipulated art to control your emotions. Typical from this disgusting modernity, nobody gives a fuck, nobody complains, nobody talks about it. We accepted our fate as an uninspired herd with no ambitions. We don’t have art to inspire us anymore. However, we got stupid entertainment that makes us temporarily happy to stay still, immobile and inactive. In a nutshell; we reached the point that it’s completely useless.

Or isn’t it? I understand why people don’t listen to me because many turn down my message and because they sense me as a lunatic or excentric. After all, I’m not someone to be considered as normal. What moves my gears is something different. If at the end I will die and so will the universe and nobody has no certainty about what will happen next. Then why worry about all this shit about values, beauty or inspiration?

Because it feels right for me, when I was a kid, one person who used to make me happy was my grandfather. He’s part of why I started liking cartoons a lot. He used to tell me cool stories and made impressions of cartoon characters to make me laugh. I never met such a joyful and full of energy person like him in my life. He always inspired me, telling me his stories and showing me how strong he was. One day… he just got cancer, my grandpa was going to die, and while I was sad about it, I was too weak to face reality. I sometimes wanted to escape and not thinking of sad stuff. I made so many hedonistic things at the time. I couldn’t look at my grandfather because he’s just wasn’t the same, all that jolliness was just gone. My grandfather died, I didn’t dare to say goodbye, and that’s why I hate hedonism, and I love fascinating and beautiful art.

Hedonism weakens us, and we always know it when we fall into it. Instead, art or even good entertainment inspires and join us together.

That’s why I promised myself never to lose my spirit, no matter how most people see me; I will be me—doing crazy things, taking risks. The victory means finding a superior status, and defeat means finding death. There won’t be in-betweens for me; I’ll be eternally inspired, even in the eyes of death. No cancer will change that, not even the cancer of modernity.

[victorjugos]

lov u doomy <3

[brotchamanteam]

Reseña al anime Space Dandy por Perezoso Doom

BROTCHA!!

[skipygmod]

Paid Review by the Translator

SIgh... I begged the donator to change his request, but I stupidly accepted without checking the source material, but in the end, he insisted for me to review this waste of time.

I mean, it’s the first page; and what the hell is wrong with that leg? I mean, what am I supposed to review a work like this?

How am I going to feel like putting an effort in my review, if the author didn’t even put effort into the comic? “The aliens invaded, and that’s pretty much the lore so far.” “In the beginning, there was nothing. And thus, there was nothing to narrate.” Not even the author cares about the story or the world. Is this supposed to be humor? Because I’m not laughing, this is like the comics that my kindergarten mates used to make.

And the worst part is that the author is an adult. The author is an adult, and the drawings look like a child made it.

And the writing of this comic is utterly childish. So okay, the plot doesn’t have a defined direction, and then we have a generic scenario. Other comics have no plot, but at least those other comics stand out because of their characters’ charisma.

This comic’s characters are a furry fetish, and the fox acts like a whore. And the rest of the characters have no personality, and when they show a sign of personality, those traits aren’t consistent and change through the course of the story, and thus everybody can behave as whatever they want, and they won’t actually be out of character because they don’t have A DEFINED CHARACTER.

And not even trying hard enough, you can’t like the humor because the author takes any chance to show his OBSESSION WITH FARTS! 

I know authors with weird fetishes, but they’re not rubbing it in all the time. Before seeing any red flag, I sensed that the author would be a fetishist freak from DeviantArt and HEY, my Internet experience was not in vain.

I wasn’t wrong because I’m reviewing the prime example of the mental retardedness of a fart fetishist.

 I don’t know, ask the patron. I suspect that he secretly hates me. However I don’t get why would anyone want me to waste time like that.

To wrap this up, “Off Saving the World” got nothing redeemable. The drawing is shit, no real plot, no direction, the humor is retarded and is full of the author’s fetishes. The characters are not well defined, yadda yadda yadda I want to be done with this post.

The faster we forget that this exists, the best. Just ignore that you read/listened to this post.

1/10

[skipygmod]

One time, David Hume articulated the word: "Beauty in things exists in the mind which contemplates them." That sentence means that there's no such thing as an objective quality of beauty. That phrase has been used countless times to disagree with other maxims without thinking about an argument, to support modern relativism, postmodernism and basically to say that they're no objective requirements on criticism. Everything is opinions based on subjectivity because in the end "Beauty exists in the mind which contemplates it".

No one from these people has read Hume, as he was the opposite of a liberal who thinks critiques are opinions.

It's funny how they use a decontextualized phrase of an author, who was considered brilliant as a dogma, but at the same time won't use nor accept other quotes by the same author.

David Hume believed that something's beauty wasn't something objective and establish what is beautiful or not depended on the individuals' perception. That doesn't mean he believed that every artistic critique was subjective or in other words; they didn't have a substantial value, nor there was no rule or guideline.

While David Hume thought that beauty was a work of perception, he also believed that we had a good reason to think that something was beautiful. For him, some things are designed to be beautiful. Thus, it's normal that we sense them as such.

If you let me interpret the author; I believe that beauty is found in things sensed as biologically favourable and healthy. Someone can indeed consider the disease as something beautiful, and in the end, it's something so subjective as somebody who thinks that a sunset is beautiful. But that doesn't mean that the disease is something harmful, and the person who founds it beautiful is wrong.

David Hume also considered that superior tastes exist, even though, many aspects of critique are subjective and they're a matter of taste, to Hume; we should trust in some whose taste is superior.

It sounds contradictory for a postmodernist. Why trust in something subjective like the taste? Because if something subjective, A is as valid as B because Hume A wasn't as valid as B, even though they came from the perception.

Even if Hume, beauty comes from the perception and perception comes from the individuals, individuals are superior. A more intelligent, cultured individual with a higher spirit has the qualities to perceive reality. Thus, whatever they comprehend, as subjective it could be, is preferable and probably more beneficial.

Even inside subjectivity are hints; the colour you prefer is something subjective. And if you like blue is as valid as liking red, but in the end, that question has a null impact. However, if you prefer to spend your time in X way instead of Y, while it can be a subjective question, it impacts your life. It's a justified taste with valid reasons, and as subjective your preference can be, it doesn't change the fact that it could be harmful to society if it's being promoted.

I stumbled across many shoddy critics on YouTube that repeat like parrots, how I promote dogmas, that I think that criticism is entirely objective. Everybody should think the same when it was never the case.

I never said that criticism is objective, I pronounced objective guidelines, subjective guidelines, and the values of all these rules are something relative. Improving critical thinking doesn't have to do with just following a couple of steps. It doesn't have to do with JUST studying and memorizing some rules.

It has to do with – obvious to say- reasoning. And improving your life can achieve better logical thinking, turning you into a better person, because the criterion of a better person is one we can trust.

I can't entirely agree with everything said by Plato, David Hume or some philosopher about critique. Still, in the end, I can appreciate that many of them have certainty and they're conclusive. A philosopher or thinker who is not conclusive is garbage and doesn't deserve your time. And guess what? We're full of those thinkers on YouTube. They won't tell you you're wrong for thinking that X is Z nor liking Y. How many of these critics do you know that they're making clear this topic for you? Or make an effort to explain their criteria. They're so busy creating an image or trying not to offend anyone with their opinions; besides being subjective, they never try to justify with a solid reason.

So, back to my ideology about critical pragmatism, the quality of work is defined not only by its purpose and if it fulfils it but by the purpose's nature. Many thinkers throughout history have argued that there's no fixed goal on art, while many things have a clear intention, art does not. Traditionally art is for transmitting beauty and inspiring, but the understanding of art has changed for better or worse.

Some art pieces are looking to provoke the opposite, to show you that life has no meaning, to feel fear, disgust, anger, or to cause any negative emotion in general.

Alright, something that is just trying to entertain is that; entertainment, it's not art.

I'm not expanding on this again, and I already made an entry about the nature of art.

What I'm going to say with this is that the purpose is still the same. To invoke, to inspire and to reflect on. The thing is that the method has changed, now you can inspire with a tragedy or think about the negative parts of life.

Expressing yourself that way is not an unconnected concept to the ancient world; it always has been that way, it's just our understanding of it has distorted with time due to cultural subversions.

What makes cinema distinctive as art is handling time, the footage; alright, it means that the footage is the most important thing, the footage is essential and indispensable. It makes cinema what it is, but in the end, the goal of a film is to tell something, thus writing is the most important.

This principle applies to animation, comics, or literature. All these mediums use different methods for the same objective, to tell something.

The objective of a videogame, on the other hand, is not to tell something, but to entertain and cause a thrill, also videogames that are telling you something have them as a supporting feature. That is why I won't take them as a serious artistic medium.

The objective of every work of art is to invoke, inspire and be thought-provoking. The last statement is true for dance, painting and literature; what are they trying to invoke or transmit is an entirely different story, and it's something that I already mentioned before. Certain messages are better or more important than others.

After bothering to clarify my criterion, what we can expect from my opposition are edits about me, memes, insults to my family; to my persona. And we can expect content creators will ignore my post because I'm a polemic figure because of ad-hominem and so on. They got no serious way to respond because I'm one of the few who take these subjects seriously.

[skipygmod]

Subjective, Objective and Relative have straightforward definitions, but they can be confusing and hard to apply in practice.

Subjective is the notion that something is true from the perspective of an individual. That connects with the feelings and personal taste.

"Objective" is the notion that something is true independent of human perspective. It's an absolute, undeniable and, unmovable truth.

Relativism is a bit of both; it's the notion about something's true depending on the context and circumstances. It means that it's true, but changing the factors or the perspective that truth stops existing.

It may be true that you're a tall person in a short people's country, but it's not longer true if you go to a tall people country.

 Because defining what is genuinely tall is up to comparison. From there we get the semantics of relativism, it's what it has a relation. It is true regarding another thing.

Modern Relativism and Absolute Relativism are more radical doctrines of thought; it's about everything in life is relative, which it's a contradiction because it would be the same about saying that nothing is true and everything is untrue. No objective parameters nor comparison standards.

Relativism stops making sense when you say height is relative. Still, at the same time, you're stating that measure values and the concept of meters so are relative, that means by your mental speculations, you're sidetracking and bending the point, resulting in not sounding like an intellectual, but a person with schizophrenia.

Eather Objectivism, Relativism or Subjectivism, things must be functional. If I hate things such as Cultural Relativism is because those types of thinking are inefficient and incompetent at the time of evaluating results.

It needs an entirely selective thought and sophistry to deny a culture that made big progress in medicine and space discoveries is just like the culture which is alright to kill each other for no reason.

The only reason to see them as equals is trying to bend the concept of what is right and wrong or appeal to assumptions and ignore facts by convenience.

I'm bringing all this up is because all these doctrines of thought also have to do with toons.

When it's about judging animated works, we will bring up the words subjectivism, relativism and objectivism.

The notion about what is objective, subjective or relative at the moment of analysing is fuzzy, and many scoundrels take advantage of distinguishing and rejecting your standards, resorting to mental gymnastics.

It's easy to own a primitive thought and to say that my critiques have no validity because everything is subjective or relative or any nonsense like that. The truth is with these kinds of takes, they're not reasoning, and it's assuming an incoherent position like it's an objective judgement.

Ironically I'm not an objectivist, and I don't believe that relativism can't be applied, but I think that with trial and error, results speak more than semantics.

What I do believe is in the importance of debate and supremacy.

I believe in better life-forms, better lifestyles, better world views and better results.

The above applies in animation critiques and every kind of review in general. If there are superior societies in the world, it's because their members have had a larger ability of criticism and improvement.

At the moment a society declines or heads for suicide, it's when their members lost their ability to express themselves, to criticise what they got in front of them and; in few words when they have refused to think of difficulties, probably because of psychological manipulation.

No matter your class, your race, your nation, health status or any cause thinking triumphs over brute force. That's why critique is one of the most powerful tools that the human race have available.

Because of this, Postmodernism is not about brute force nor reasoning; it's about one's self-destruction.

Phrases like "You won't change a thing with your critiques," "It's just my opinion, respect it," "That's your opinion, each with their tastes" and other bullshit like that are a reflection of a mediocre and mindless society. 

The better the cultural status, the lesser you'll hear these phrases. At the moment of explaining that not everything is subjective or that an opinion only has the allowed weight of their reasons and arguments; I'm just explaining an obviousness for the civilised and advanced people.

We must point out that even the civilised and advanced people can fall into the traps and manipulations of the postmodernist thought by its sophisticated yet rude way of bending semantics and sidetracking vital points in a discussion.

Criticising something by its own merits, it's also mediocre thinking and something that doesn't have a fundamental logic.

Understandably, there are out-of-place and invalid comparisons or simple false analogies.

But it's in fact, that comparison is the most crucial method for criticism. It's precisely this method that will get you closer to the truth. It's just when you compare the good works with the bad ones you have a clear image of the whole outlook, and that is true for everything in life.

One can compare groups, societies, economies, territories, jobs, buildings and absolutely everything. And that will give us a bigger image of superiority and inferiority.

But the thing is that sensitivity has prevailed so much over reasoning in modern times that with just words "Superiority" and "Inferiority" have become synonyms of wickedness, into taboo, into vicious terms and speak in the worst ways of the person who uses them. Again a reflection of the inferior modern man's unstable world view.

My message, folks, is that if you can review silly cartoons and cinema movies; you can do it! And it's more beneficial than harmful; it's such a minor and innocent practice like that one, which it can slowly awake your ability of critique and comparison that will take you to consider and assess about more crucial things in life.

Using your brain even for an exercise like playing Chess is truly a habit you should acquire.

I'll admit that my scoring system is not perfect and it's relative and ignorable to a certain point. The most important thing is not giving a five or a ten to some work, but it is what I said to justify that number. Some of my points are more objective and subjective than others, and the number is just a minimal description. Ten means Perfect, nine means Excellent, eight means Very Good, seven means Just Good, six means Average, five means Mediocre, 4 means Just Bad, three means Very Bad, but that doesn't mean that there can be some exception or distinctive feature with a title. You can see some mediocre works for the historical value they have just like some other works are pretty good at a relative level. Still, since they don't have artistic aspirations, nor ambition, their score seemed depleted like any production for kids, and that won't be an impediment to be an excellent material for your children. I suppose that is the relative side of the issue, but you can't deny that you can find an objective truth between strict opinions and assessments. Trial and error can give better results in the long run, and that's why objectively speaking...

“Knowledge is Power”

I am the best reviewer on the community, you can disagree, but that's your subjective opinion.

[skipygmod]

Commentary - Why is Spongebob Squarepants currently TERRIBLE

What the hell happened, man? I remember when old and young ones said you were undeniably the best cartoon ever, I remember when they said that you were an improved version of Rocko and Ren & Stimpy.

They used to put you next to icons like Spiderman or Superman, now you’re not what you used to be. What happened? I understand that when a new concept lengthens so much, it stops being what it used to be. But that’s not the problem, Spongebob not only is not what it used to be, it’s just terrible. First the biggest and the most obvious problem is:

Flanderization: What is Flanderization? It is the most desperate resource of every mediocre writter. When a series has been aired for years, and now they’re out of ideas, the medicore writter resorts to turning the characters personalities up to eleven.

I’ll give you an example of what Flanderization is. Picture that I created a character, Totu. Totu is a soccer fan, he practices an hour everyday and values his friends and family. When the show has been airing for 6 years, the original writter leaves and now the medicore writter makes Totu to have soccer as his main trait to the degree of playing soccer naked on his backyard, at dawn, eventhough it’s snowing; sending his friends and family to hell. If they interrupt his soccer practice he’ll probably beat them up, and it’s insinuated that he probably has had sex with his ball and you get the idea.

What it used to be a relative nice and relatable character, now it’s a one-dimensional character, whose representative feauture is Soccer and his hobby is so over the top that it turned out nasty and obnoxious.

Another example of Flanderization is that a character whose favorite food is pie. As the show keeps going, he becomes a pie obsessive. Everytime he appears, he has to do something pie-related. He goes to pie convensions, he wears clothes with pie pictures on them, and he only talks about pie.

To this point is clear what Flanderization is about, and how you noticed, a lot of sitcom series suffer from it. I guess many of you see how this fits perfectly with New Spongebob.

Spongebob, who was a naive, but smart kid, now he’s idiotic as Patrick. Being an idiot never was his trait, he was just naive. He was devoted to his work, because he was a dedicated and industrious person. Now there’s an episode where he falls in love with a fucking hamburger.

UGH.

He bothered cranky Squidward because of his naiveness and for the most part because he was asking for it before, now it looks like he’s in love with Squidward, he spies on him and even breathes heavily in front of him.

In another episode, Spongebob buys a new pet as company for Gary, that pet transforms into a monster and is about to eat Gary, when Spogebob arrives he nags Gary because he thinks Gary is bothering the other pet.

Spongebob wasn’t that stupid in the past, he was able to recognize danger and he even risked himself to save his friends. This is not funny, it doesn’t fit with the show’s humor. It’s sadistic and maddening to the point of satiation.

What’s with the emphasis in making the characters to act like sadistic assholes? What’s the point of it? Patrick also has his problems, he was an idiot before, he didn’t truly affect anyone. He said dumb things and did harmeless idiocy.

Now Patrick is a danger, he’s no longer an idiot, he’s an asshole.

In this scene Patrick is “helping” Spongebob pouring glue so he can be stuck forever. NO really, he’s actually “helping him”

Everything he does ends up in Spongebob or Squidward getting hurt.

“Hahahaha! How funny, his best friend did this to him” – Current writers.

Making emphasis on how doesn’t Patrick realize on the physical or moral harm he’s doing.

I’m not surprised that the Internet hates him so MUCH right now.

Or even worse, making emphasis on how he doesn’t give a fuck about all of these. New Patrick’s levels of assholeness are so high that many episodes can be considered he’s got a villain status since his only function is to torture the characters. And of course, getting away with it.

It’s not like the good old days where karma existed on the series and whose do bad deeds ended up paying the price. Now the point is that the assholes get away and the innocents end up paying the price.

Sandy of course, her only trait is science. Plankton to this point is now a buffoon that makes Mr. Krabs to look like the real villain of the show. Mr. Krabs’ exaggeration for money is so ridiculous that he chooses a few coins instead of his friends or even his own daughter. It’s not like in the past when he cared for spending time with his daughter, helping her on her prom or spending money for Mrs. Puff or worrying about Spongebob’s health.

No, now Mr. Krabs doesn’t give two shits about them and his fatherhood has been exterminated. Now money is more like a sick paraphillia for him. Squidward, well, he was an embittered individual, now he’s sank on depression and every one of his scenes are amazingly painfull to watch.

Yes, it’s not fake. They’re truly suggesting suicide in “Spongebob Squarepants”

Flanderization is undoubtedly one of the most distinctive problems with new “Spongebob Squarepants” but there are also other problems.

Bad Direction: Spongebob Squarepants’ soundtrack is one of the catchiest of any cartoon, however the direction nowadays are wasting its long music repertory to repeat them over and over again. It’s like they lost the rights of the music and they can only use four tracks instead.

What the flying fuck is that?

The habitants design are getting more stilted and humanoid

some of them don’t look like fishes anymore.

And in general, it feels like the show is not going underwater anymore. The references to maritime stuff are gone and instead of putting coral as trees, now they’re putting normal trees. Its sea vibe is absent.

On the other hand, the animation which is not bad, is no longer expresive or visually fun as it used to. They forgot the visual gags, and have replaced them with grotesque imagery and moments. The reason why Hillenburg wanted a storyboard and script based show, is because he wanted the visual jokes to well represented.

And the 3rd problem with this dog’s breakfast is:

Jokes are slow or they’re not even there: There are new episodes where comedy is non-existant and no joke is happening. Other episodes take their comedy on making Spongebob cry or making other characters scream. It’s not enough to say that it is not funny at all and gets so irritating, meanwhile the old Spongebob, you had joke after joke, with well-made dialogues and visual gags; here jokes take an eternity or basically they’re not present.

I won’t deny that the in the old Spongebob had kinda slow jokes too, but there weren’t moments were Spongebob started to count or cry for TWO whole minutes.

We also have to point out that the majority of its comedy is based on cruelty, grotesque and disgusting stuff, the old Spongebob had grotesque stuff too, but it wasn’t the focus point of every joke.

ALWAYS, but ALWAYS, the SAME THING: There are only three types of episodes in this shit:

 One where the focus is to torture a character, (especially, Squidward) and making emphasys on their pain.2)   An episode with a grotesque premise. For example: Spongebob getting pus out of his zits.3)   Plankton stealing the Krabby Patty formula.

An episode with a grotesque premise. For example: Spongebob getting pus out of his zits.

Plankton stealing the Krabby Patty formula.

Writers seem not interested to try something different. I kid you not that I can’t count the bazillion times that an episode ended in Squidward or Mrs. Puff getting arrested. It’s like the writers can’t think of a different wrap-up.“Oh, we tortured Squidward already, what else can we do? Oh, I know, arrest him for some stupid reason, that can be funny”To this point I’m 100% sure that these writers are apathetic of their job and they hate what they’re doing. And finally the last point and the one I hate the most:

The show reduced itself to be the most mean-spirited, unfair, crudest, cruelest, and darkest as it can be (Dark humour done wrong): Also translated to a Ren & Stimpy wannabe. Everybody in this show is trying to make miserable to each other. Everybody hate their lives, everybody are fucked up on the head,

And the biggest focus in the series is to make you uncomfortable with all the shit the characters has to put up with, now is seeing Patrick hurting Spongebob, seeing Squidward going through physical pain and punnishing the innocent. It’s like the show is trying to be a Ren & Stimpy wannabe.

In Ren & Stimpy, the tortures had to do with situation, here happen just because. Out of nowhere. Without a funny context in the situation. It’s just a show made for making the characters suffer most of the time. I know that Squidward suffered in the old episodes, but mostly was because he was asking for it.

He (Squidward) also had his glory moments like in “Band Geeks”. Now Squidward can’t sit down to relax because Spongebob and Patrick come to burn his eyes out, rip peaces of skin off, and of course ending up getting arrested or homeless.

I really don’t have nothing against sadistic humour, I think it’s funny in many series, but Spongebob Squarepants, whose humour wasn’t focused in that, and it had touching moments, it really feels forced and shocking.

The specific moment when the show started its decline was when “Good Neighbors” premiered. Like I said all the characters in the past had their well-deserved reward and well-deserved punnishment according the karma.

Now in the new episodes, Mrs. Puff and Squidward were in so many death-risk moments that they want to KILL Spongebob. It gets far from funny and it gets uncomfortable, disturbing and ruins the touching moments of the show.

“This is not funny, it’s INSANITY, it’s DISTURBING, seriously, this is not “Drawn Together” or “Family Guy”. This was supposed to be aimed to 8-Years old”

Meanwhile, in another dimmension

Like Mrs. Puff worrying for making Spongebob pass, Squidward felt sorry for making Spongebob cry or even Squidward cryied for Spongebob because he thought he was dead. And even when Squidward gave away his belonging on Christmas to make Spongebob happy

(Go to 9:37) Have in mind that it was SQUIDWARD who said THAT, which makes this triple as touching.

What happened to you, man? I used to be your fan, at the end there’s nothing else to see, another screw-up from Nickelodeon, and another show that doesn’t deserve new episodes, if the 2nd movie is either going to be good or bad, I really don’t know what to think, I hope I do, and it may be the finale, nevertheless, the damage is already done.

(Go to 9:59 of the video)

[skipygmod]

Paid Review By Dino Romazzo Ruiz

The reason I consider FLCL as my favourite anime has been a topic of discussion of my followers.

Between naysayers say that the anime is weird and 2deep4U as a way to make that I understand something too complex and pretend to be smart.

On the other hand, and knowing my taste for objectivity, classic art, standardisation, what is traditional and rules, they cannot understand how can I have in my 1st place something so chaotic, disorganized and wild.

Others say that I relate to the main character and because of it I'm not being objective and I like it because of an emotional reason.

Even though the last sentence is true to a certain point, it's not like I don't have real reasons and can't see quality on the series. I mean, come on. FLCL has one of the best animated works that ever existed. But I'll focus on that in a few moments.

Let me make myself clear, that unlike what people think from the first example, I really don't consider FLCL as the most complex thing on the universe, that has incredibly deep characters, that has a super trascendental message, nor is the best ever told story.

I simply believe that it is very well done in what it is proposing, what is being proposed is very good and beyond that is that it achieves it in a very unique and original way, which it adds infinite points in creativity and ingenuity.

What people don't understand of FLCL is that the story is about Naota, not about the strange things that happen to him.

People happen to believe that the story is about space pirates, or about Haruko, which none of them matter in a strict sense and their function is merely symbolical.

In fact, it's not hard to notice that the show doesn't pay attention to any of that, and furthermore we can say that FLCL is the less common coming-of-age story that exists.

It's you typical show about what truly is growing up told in the most chaotic way as possible, to truly pass on the feeling of adolescence, since adolescence is chaotic and emotional.

The show and Haruko by extent are adolescence, they're debauchery, rock and roll, vice and excitement. And that either you want to admit it or not, is one of the most brilliant realisations that you could come up with.

Taking a simple concept and execute it in such way that every element and emotion in the series remind you the subject in question. It's symbolism done right. Even the wildness in the production is used to notify that.

Confusion, lawlessness, madness, adrenaline. The animation, soundtrack, colour and so on are not good just for the sake of them and because they're well crafted. It's because they're used to transmit something, like a medium to tell the story and this is the most important, true and artistic use of kinesics.

When people say that FLCL makes no sense, I take them as superficial, of course it's because it's obvious that the series is filled to the brim with things that don't make sense or it's just purely comedy, but those people are missing the point of the show.

They believe that the show is about robots, pirates or aliens, when it's simply a coming-of-age story, just told in the less orthodox way as it can be.

They're just missing the point of how the characters have their own conflicts, arcs, development and conclusions at the end of the footage. Besides all the craziness that surrounds them.

And if you believe that such madness is too much or it doesn't add anything, it's because you haven't seen that it IS what makes FLCL impossible to carry in other medium.

FLCL is the purest form to tell something in animation, not only it uses all of its elements to pass an emotion or a vanguard on, but also it does it in such a way, that'd be impossible to tell FLCL's story in other mediums that are not animation. And to be blunt, I can think of many scarce examples of animations that has done this stroke of genius.

And lastly, I totally confess that FLCL is a personal show for me and I relate with it, I also had my female friends with mental issues who told me that I was immature for liking sweets, I also had a displeasure to the adults that surrounded me, I felt smarter and more mature than them and I also lived in a godforsaken boring and poor little town, but for some strange reason it was a magnet of incredible stuff that nobody would believe.

Nothing that I mentioned has to do with the score I'm giving to the show, it's just a plus from me, the score I'm giving is because of everything I mentioned earlier. It's a series that did a great job with the design, colours and animation, with a soundtrack that may not have my favourite band, but it fits the show's mood and message, with an use of everything I listed that creates its own artistic avant-guard, using all its visual elements to complement its narrative.

With characters with cathartic resolutions, a lot of emotional weight and above of all, it's very fun. Because FLCL has the perfect balance of being artistic and entertaining at the same time. It can be silly and goofy, but not mindless. It's smart and at the same time, fun and entertaining. It's a perfect balance of what I consider pragmatic on animation. And because of it I consider it an ideal work like anything else. FLCL is its own world and any attempt to imitate it will be in vain and that's why I consider it a perfect work and it has a special value for me.

10/10

[skipygmod]

Ping Pong: The Animation - Review

Hello, everybody. This is Perezoso Doom, bringing you cartoons and peace to your lives.  As my first video on this channel, I’d like to talk about my favorite sports anime: “Ping Pong: The Animation”.

For starters, I’m not a sports fan myself,  I’m a person who prefers spending hours and hours writing shit on the computer than going out to the streets and kick a ball. I’m not good at sports, watching them on TV is boring for me. And as you can see I’m not a fan of animes and cartoons about them.

But with “Ping Pong”, I got a justified reason.  The series itself is an experience, even though it’s a simple premise. You got characters, they play table tennis, they want to get better and that’s all.

First, what I’ve got to say that as simple the premise is, the show hooks you up with a good, motivator, flamboyant and stylish narrative. The show is constantly using metaphors, however, the show is not being at all pretentious, and doesn’t makes us believe that we will see something more than it really is.

The use of those metaphors is so smart, that in fact they make so much sense and ends up giving us an incredible uplifting message. On the other hand, we’ve got the characters, which it’s, of course, this series’ strong spot.  This is one of those few animes that I liked all of its characters.

At the time I have to choose a favorite, I struggle. Everyone’s personalities are well definite, they have a pinch of depth and with only eleven episodes they manage to evolve to the goal of giving us a well planned and satisfactory conclusion.

Another thing that I like about the characters is that they’re all very complex and at the same time are very credible to the point that they could be people that you may know in real life, so they feel totally human.

Then, there’s an aspect that I consider it needlessly polemic, the animation and character design. Okay, to talk about this and making myself clear seems complicated and annoying.

A lot of people say that Ping Pong’s animation is bad, which is pretty much the opposite. Ping Pong’s animation is actually good, compared with many animes that have been out lately.

It’s in fact faster than “Kill-La-Kill”, “Shingeki no Kyoyin”, “Sword Art Online”, and many others than people said that they got good animation. The typical way that the animes have is making some kind of GIF that barely overcomes 10 frames, being panned on the screen for a long and slow period of time. 

“My mistake, this doesn’t have over 10 frames. And people usually consider that as “Good Animation”

Those takes are very mediocre in my opinion. They save money, time and effort, but that’s not putting love in what you’re doing for me. Ping Pong, on the other hand, they never show you these kinds of takes. They show you different camera angles in different directions, a well-polished 3D without a dirty and ugly CG that would look horrible without HD. The animation is very dynamic and well-done; it’s different and fits in any scene and anything that the characters say. I won’t lie about when characters are talking in certain moments, there are just lips movements and nothing else. But they make it up with the camera views they’re showing. People also say that the animation is bad just because the drawings are ugly, which it doesn’t make sense and it’s totally irrelevant. I’ve seen people mixing up animation and design. One thing is the animation; which is movement and dynamics. And something different is the design, which it’s how they show you the movement and the dynamics.

There are designs with no animation, but no animation with no design to be represented. After all, I don’t find the designs ugly. I mean they’re close to how the human being looks.

Saying that the designs are ugly is like saying the human being is anatomically ugly in general. And I’m sure you’ve seen in your everyday life uglier people than them. But that’s my own perception. In fact , I felt like watching an anime with a different style, no moe, no bishionen features, no beta character design or fake badassery feeling. I felt like watching something more original. In conclusion, it’s hard for me to find something on this anime that’s really bad. The narrative has a good pacing, the characters are very likeable, and the great Makasi Yuuasa’s animation is a whole experience. It’s a fact that I recommend this series. The only issue here is as much you visually like this art style, or how much the overcoming/friendship stories hook you up, even for myself who doesn’t like Sports series, I loved it.

“I don’t like rating with numbers, I find them inaccurate”

UPDATE - 5/19/2016

Okay, pay attention because I’m going to explain just once how this goes. This is the first of a set of videos that I’ll make called “Update”, the aim is to re-review videos I’ve done in the past and correct stuff I don’t agree or in some cases I won’t correct so much, but add more content, now that I earned more knowledge.

The videos were inconsistent on the quality side, if it’s necessary I’ll just put one picture and that’s it. In some cases, there will be lengthy videos, or videos that barely last one minute.

The reason is that I don’t want those videos to be treated as reviews, but as add-ons. In my review playlist, I’ll put these videos in a numerical, but not in a chronological order, and when someone wants to watch the reviews in succession, they can see a correction immediately.

“At the moment you’re watching this, this video this video will be in the middle of these two (Ping Pong and Kill-la-Kill) because is the continuation of the first one.”

In fact, I’ve done before these kind of spiritual successors, what is funny about this project is to go watch the old video I’m updating, which it will be on the description and then come back to the update video so you get a general idea about the series I’m updating.

“One is a continuation from another one (“Versus - Powerpuff Girl vs Powerpuff Girls Z” and “Versus – Powerpuff Girls (1998) vs Powerpuff Girls (2016)) . This is why they got the same number, the number represent the franchise, not the videos’ chronological order”

Some people will say that is very complicated and prefer to see new stuff, but the aim of this project is to question my own reasoning with my most recent and best trained criterion to solidify my arguments.

In few words, I’m criticizing and testing myself, because I’m more strict and cynical, and unlike many reviewers, I don’t try to pretend that I don’t change my mind and I can accept that I can be wrong. Except when I’m 100% sure, I can’t be wrong.

Starting off with this set of videos, we got my video about “Ping Pong”, my first review, and the first video on the channel back on 2014. It’s a video with a terrible resolution, it was a time when my locution was bad and I tried to make my editing to look professional, but ironically it made me look even more amateur, so I decided to use a simpler design.

It’s not a bad review, but many of its reasons aren’t well justified.  For example, I said that the series is different because it is symbolic and motivator, which it’s a very ambiguous reason. While the conclusion is correct, having in mind that I hate sports animes, this is something you can’t say about any other sports anime.

The difference is that Ping Pong is very mature and discrete when it’s using its subjects, while your typical sports shonen is about a hyperactive kid sermonizing and shouting their overcoming message to the audience. And let’s not forget about the reasons to become a professional sportsman/sportswoman are stupid on those series, while “Ping Pong” they bother to itemize about why did they got interested on the sport.

And despite that I won’t make those cliche, reiterative, and not so transcendental messages as something marvelous, the reason I’m giving props to “Ping Pong” above any sports series that’s not “Ashita no Joe” (Tomorrow’s Joe), the simple fact of being subtle, and having a presentation that’s not idealistic to the point of being childish, it makes a big difference on the quality of itself.

So, there you go, best sports anime of all time is “Ashita no Joe”, because the characters die and the series is not about the sport anyways.  Second best sport series is “Ping Pong: The Animation”, which it gets a 7/10, because besides being your typical sports story, the presentation is artistic, the build-up is appropriate, the characters don’t act like retards, and it doesn’t needlessly last 200 fucking episodes.

All the other sports animes can go to hell and they all suck for my concern