MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
This show never really grabs you to make you laugh, to force you to think about difficult topics and dilemmas in life, to expose your own hypocrisy or anything like that, that other shows actually accomplish doing. Even The Simpsons has deep, poignant episodes that make you ponder.
This show starts to go in some direction, but quickly comes back to tie the knot for the episode - things are never allowed to be left open. I have never seen a show more episodic than this one as well - some things go on in the background, but for the most part, if you have seen a few random episodes, you have basically seen the whole show, because it doesn't deviate from the formula that becomes more repetitive as the show goes on, you can almost predict the whole episode from the first couple of minutes.
Wouldn't it have been more interesting if after Hank's accidental 'Mary Jane' experience, he would've in some later episode remembered what it felt like and wanted to try it again or something? They have an 'addiction' episode, but it's just cigarettes, instead of something more mind-expanding or society-exposing.
How about Dale's conspiracy stuff actually being more based on the truth and actually leading to an evil agenda the Powers That Be, The Bilderberg Group, etc. have been following and executing throughout history, and then Dale would never quite be himself again, bumping into this whole thing every now and then, and becoming more unhinged as he knows no one would believe him.. or something? But nope, he remains the same character without any growth or change throughout the show.
Everyone lives in a bubble they never venture outside of.. Bobby never makes any girl pregnant, Connie never does anything 'wild' (and then disappears from the show for some reason), Khan never exhibits signs of manic-depression before the very last episode (?).. what kind of retcon is THAT?
I don't know why people like this show - it can be mildly entertaining sometimes, but..
A lot of the humor (or 'humor') of this show is a very slow burn, doesn't jump at you, doesn't punch you and force you to laugh, but might create a chuckle when you think about the ridiculousness of the situation as a whole or the attitude-conflict of some characters.
This show takes some 'difficult topics' that are relatable, but then 'handles' them in a way to just tie a neat knot at the end for Hank and his family, without actually delving into the uncomfortable solutions or the intimidating inability to solve such issues at all. It scoops a spoonful of surface matter, but doesn't actually dive into the topic properly. What could be a profound, poignant, maybe even slightly lecturing three-episode special, just ends up ending abruptly when Bobby 'realizes the error of his thinking' and we NEVER hear of that topic again.
This show dabbles in 'everything', without truly bringing you anything, without truly making a statement and standing behind it - the viewer is left confused as to what the show, episode or even character(s) REALLY want to say. It seems the answer is 'nothing'. It's like they do things just to make Hank do his weird 'gasp sound', and from that point on, no one cares what happens, because that seems to be the goal.
KotH (not KOTH) is a lot like 'Return of the Jedi', in the sense that it ties the knots a bit too neatly, it adds unnecessary fluff that leads nowhere, and then it makes things ridiculous without having any consequences. This leaves the viewer basically unsatisfied - would've been better to have SOME kind of story arc here or there. Bobby ages from 12 to 13, but no further? Huh? He never grows any hair?
After all Hank learns throughout the show, he never changes in any big way. He never really reconsiders his overly strict, conservative values or habits, he never grows or expands his thinking. He just remains the same, dull, monotone, strict guy who doesn't understand the world at all, but thinks he does.
The thing about this show - which I still don't really get, I suppose - is that it's VERY mediocre.
What I mean is, whatever level a viewer is assessing it on, there's something better.
When you have 'The Simpsons', 'Family Guy', 'South Park', 'Dilbert' and who knows how many others, then you have non-cartoon sitcoms like 'Seinfeld', 'Curb Your Enthusiasm', even 'The IT Crowd' and such, not to mention the older stuff, like 'Black Adder', 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' (plus the movies), you have a tough job convincing almost anyone to choose THIS particular show to watch.
There are shows with more and better humor, faster pace, more energy, more immersion, better art..
(this show's art is interesting exactly because it's so unimpressive, and yet somewhat competent at the same time - it almost has no personality, as if the creators wanted to draw 'as realistic visuals as possible', without having the talent to really pull it off, but also not having a vision to make it quirky, unique or individualistic, so it's 'familiar but bland').
There are shows that have more unique stories, more individualistic art, better animation, and so on.
Then there are shows that are more edgy, have a deeper meaning, poke fun at more political or topical stuff, are more relatable and so on. There's more beauty in other shows (it's hard to find many characters that are actually beautiful to look at - even the main characters look like drawn by someone that has neither sense of beauty nor talent to draw - just look at Bobby, who would want a kid (or even a friend) that looks like that?)..
The problem might be that this show sort of falls inbetween the cracks of all the other shows and movies that exist. Why watch this, when The Simpsons did some story better? Why watch this, when South Park's version of the same joke is more edgy and poignant, and its artstyle more quirky and individualistic (lending the viewer the opportunity for escapism better)?
Oh yeah, forgot to mention the whole 'Macarena' scene, but at least some ''90s kids' seem to get that one. I never understood the Macarena craze, it's just a repetitive, banal song what has no musical value whatsoever, but what else has been as popular when it comes to masses and music..
..for some reason, no brilliant fusion jazz song from the 1970s ever becomes famous and worshipped by the masses. I wonder why that is.
Now, I have been to the United States of America, and experienced first-hand this weird fear-based 'surface facade' that everyone is expected to serve and worship. As someone that has lived in a more honest, truthful, direct culture that has no small talk (people are real when they talk, and say things directly and honestly, or they don't talk at all - another thing the USAians are too weak to handle for some reason - silence is scary?)...
...I had hard time understanding this childish superficiality that worships wear and shies away from anything real and true. 'Politeness', this programmed behaviour to stifle the truth so lies can rule all interaction, seemed childish and weird to me, and seems that only fragile people uphold such a facade. It's like make-up and conformistic uniform for speech.
Ironically, THESE people talk about 'freedom of speech', and yet NO ONE DARES TO USE IT!
How many people speak freely? How many of those are USAians? (Why say 'Americans', when the word 'America' has such weird history and can mean so many other things?)
It's hard to wrap your head around the fact that the people that talk about 'freedom of speech' the most, also advocate 'politeness', 'being nice' and 'following etiquette' the most! Where the freedom of any of that?
As they say, I'd rather be punched in the face with the truth (and I have been, and I am grateful) than be caressed and kissed with lies.
Borat pokes people by NOT following this conformistic, superficial, fear-based lie system that people use as a safety blanket - no wonder it's called 'comforter' - and because USAians don't know how to react to directness and truth, the reactions are hilarious.
This movie showcases many things, but mostly it tests the superficial barriers people have built around themselves, it tests their honesty, character and depth. The results of these tests are most revealing and hilarious.
Imagine that, polite people CAN be racist.. you really KNOW that thanks to Borat.
Borat is the kind of movie where you can't quite know what to think - at least in a very solid way. You find scenes funny, but some are unnerving and cringy. Others seem like bullying innocent peopple that are just trying to do their job. The 'naked wrestling' scenes... I have no clue what they were thinking. Is there even one individual in the world that enjoys those?
This movie doesn't necessarily have a politigal agenda, and Sacha doesn't necessarily aim to 'point out' any 'hypocrisies' - in his interview, he admitted to being a bit shocked as to how racist people can be, especially so openly, when an 'innocent' character asks just the right questions, or something. So he didn't start out to 'point out' anything. In my opinion, he just wanted to make a funny comedy movie, but just decided to go beyond the 'conventional bounds' to accomplish something a bit more 'real' and maybe 'edgy'.
However, when you think about it a bit more deeply, you realize this movie is basically a 'test'. Sacha, in the Borat-character, is POKING and TESTING people, cultures, and how solid and strong things are - he probably didn't expect people, situations and cultural-political correctness to crumble to little pieces so easily.
He's testing how strong people are if someone says the 'rude' thing - can they take it? Are they adults, or do they expect everyone to tiptoe around 'uncomfortable realities', like one of the woman being uglier than the others?
In my opinion, it's a sign of weakness to be and expect others to be 'polite'. Truth should be able to be said, and people should be strong enough to take it. I have been called names, and I got angry, but later realized it actually served me, and now I am glad it happened, as I was able to improve myself as the result of a direct, honest observation (that -actually- had no malice behind it).
Borat showing 'uncomfortable photos' and exhibiting 'cultural racism/sexism' is a really good test, adults should be able to handle it.
"Kazakhstan number one exporter of potassium.
Other countries have inferior potassium."
Doesn't this mean that Kazakhstan exports inferior potassium?
This makes no sense, because according to the first line, Kazakhstan exports its potassium to other countries. This means, other countries' potassium comes from Kazakhstan. So he's basically saying Kazakhstan's exported potassium is 'inferior' - but inferior to what? He doesn't differentiate between potassium Kazakhstan presumably keeps to itself and the potassium Kazakhstan exorts, so it's all the SAME potassium, so the potassium is inferior to itself?!
In ANy case, these lyrics make NO sense! No wonder the crowd was angry - I would, too! Make some sense, you gypsy-hating foreigner!
"I am using a 38.4k B.P.S. modem" (Who talks like that?)"
I guess no one. There was no '38.4k bps' modems, they were 33.6k bps modems. Also, 'bps' is lowercase and without periods inbetween. Otherwise, why wouldn't someone talk like that? In the era, where 14.4k was the most popular modem to use, someone would ABSOLUTELY point out that they have a 33.6k bps modem they utilize, especially if they're running a BBS and want people to know they can use faster modems/speeds than 14.4k to access it.
Why would people's 'talk' fall neatly into some category or box supported by you? Aren't we all free to talk any which way we want? You don't seem to grasp the concept of 'freedom of speech' and its true meaning.
Also, 'RISC is good' - well, Reduced Instruction Set CPUs can be good for certain purposes, as they are obviously faster due to the limitation of having fewer instructions, but they are also limited due to the same fact, and in the end, lost to the competition.
To add, something is usually not just 'good', unless we are talking about the opposite of evil - things have to be good for specific purposes, and they might be 'bad' in other ways. AmigaOS is good, it multitasks, it's well designed, easy to use but yet powerful to configure in various ways - but it can't compete with modern Windows systems if you want to do video editing, play modern games or emulate PS2. Windows operating systems are good, because you can do a plethora of things with them (or more), but they're also bad, because of design flaws, spyware and plenty of stupid problems and bugs they shouldn't have, and so on.
Therefore, 'RISC' can't just be 'good' - it can be good for something, bad for something else, and so on. So I grant you that no one SHOULD talk like this without at least explaining what they mean, specifically, by 'good'.
Just to add irony, I might point out, YOU just 'talked' like that (although in writing)..
I have ONLY scratched the surface with that post, by the way - there are SO many more, even more massive implications. If you can create any, even living forms, from 'patterns' in a computer, what's stopping you from creating planets or space stations that way as well? Why construct anything, EVER!, if you can just 'patternize' something into reality?
Then we get to the mad scientist lab... think of Dr. Frankenstein (not the name of the monster, but the doctor, by the way), think of all the mad people in reality and in fiction wanting and trying to create monsters, experiment with living beings, create weird cross-beeds, make mice grow a human ear as part of their body and so on.
Getting it yet? WHAT is the limitation that the computer can create, when you EDIT those patterns? Think how many weird transmutations and monsters these mad scientists can now create from simply copying patterns and editing them? Ok, this monster has too many eyes, edit the pattern... how about if they had a hand instead of a tail, edit the pattern.. then tweak and tweak it until you get the 'perfect monster', then clone it 12000 times..
The implications won't stop, you can 'create new life' with these things, why need for Genesis when you have the darn 'transporters' and replicator technology?
The big difference is, this show, although shows all kinds of 'token' characters and whatnot (though I think liteunant Uhura is a good character), tries to be 'diverse' and whatnot, it's not really _ABOUT_ the 'woke'.
The 'woke' stuff happens in the background - or even in the foreground - but it's never the focus of the attention. It's like, there's an asian and a scottish and a vulcan in the ship, but they never TALK about how there's an asian, and a scottish and a vulcan in the ship. They focus on something else, the 'diversity' is just... there.
Sometimes diversity is realistic, sometimes it's forced, sometimes it's completely unrealistic. Do teen gangs in the 'hoods really comprise of all kinds of races and 'all kinds of genders'? No. They don't. There are black gangs, mexican gangs, and so on. There's Italian Mafia, it's not a 'diversity mafia'. Yakuza probably did not and do not have too many Beyonces doing Judo Chops (I really have to stop thinking about Austin Powers movies), the chinese Triads probably didn't include all that many Hillbilly Eskimo-halfies.
'Woke' or not (and I don't think it was THAT 'woke', my alarms didn't go off that much with this), this show made you THINK.
More than taking a definite side and bashing things like 'white, heterosexual males', like today's 'woke' does so casually now, it presented you with a 'moral dilemma', made YOU question your own morality and whether things are right or wrong, and what would you do, and what solution would you present as the correct one, etc.. it made the violent womanizer a true diplomat in many cases.
Kirk may have used his fists a lot, but he was pretty darn intelligent, situtationally aware, understood problems very profoundly and was able to think of solutions that occurred to no one else, plus take charge and know what he's doing, in a charismatic, leader-sort of way.
Would YOU think it's better to have a 'clean war' where people just walk into booths to be disintegrated because computer told they are a casualty?
Would YOU think it's right to manipulate people to rescue/save another group of people?
What do YOU think about a very ugly creature that is not 'life as we understand it', but nevertheless can feel and dream?
It puts you into the problem, and makes you think what the best solution might be, and sometimes, it seems there isn't a clear, easy, clean, pure, righteous answer or solution. Oftentimes, Kirk surprises you with his fresh angle and amazing compromise.
In this show, 'woke' stuff is mostly in the background, and although the women are very 'don't you dare gaze upon me', and clearly control the relationships, seduce men easily and so on, and aren't strong enough to take a punch from a man (though when are they going to be? Still waiting..), they are shown as intelligent beings with personality and will of their own, there's nothing particularly sexist except how the women treat men (a woman can slap a man, but man can't slap the woman back, that's not misogyny, that's misandry, sexism against men)..
I probably shouldn't be saying this, but looking things NOT from corporate and financial interests of the wealthy and powerful, but from the perspective of 'what's best for the people', I can reveal that it's pretty easy to find those versions.. I don't know, in a non-physical form that might exist in the faraway future of 'after 2000', where things might be.. 'online'.. as in 'files' and such?
I mean, they might be ARCHIVED somewhere, possibly... (nudge)
What? Why would I nudge twice?
So much 'deleted' here, it's impossible to know what this thread is about.
From what I can gather, someone is quoting the bum in the movie, that just rambles stuff in bad english, then someone thought he's someone he's not, and gets corrected. Would be interesting to know what else was said..
There are already good answers here, but there's another point for the (movie-unrealistic) 'silencer':
A random explosion can be an accident..
(even though it's ludicrous to just LEAVE the CD/DVD/Video CD/Laserdisc/whatever in the player! Even if there's a tiny remnant of it, SOME data can be possibly recovered and that's pretty damning evidence..)
..but if there are loud gunshots first, THEN an explosion, it's very obvious a murder was committed.
However, if it's just an explosion, it could be a gas leak or whatnot, and not necessarily a murder. So it's imperative that the gunshots are not heard, the explosion sound is irrelevant. After all, Boddicker is not worried about the neighbours not being able to sleep, he's only focusing on them not being able to connect 2 plus 2 to know it was a murder.
I still can't get over how someone like Boddicker would leave the disc in the player, or someone like 'Richard' would let him.. why is it even necessary to play that thing to him, when he's just gonna kill him anyway?
Why risk him possibly actually getting to the explosive before it explodes, and not make sure that he absolutely can't reach it? The only reason he isn't able to throw it away is because he FUMBLES.
Why has Boddicker so much faith in his fumbling, shouldn't an effective killer make sure he can't reach it at all? It makes no sense, just like this whole movie..
"Since he doesn't have a two week deadline anymore like he did working with Screwattack and GameTrailers, he just kinda produces them at his own pace now."
The pace is not the problem, the quality and end result is.
Because video games are meant for your MIND, it's actually just DISTRACTING, if you have to involve your physical body too much.
I think Wii does it well, the archery stuff and tennis is a lot of fun, but your hands get tired, and then what do you do? You go back to the gamepad, your joystick, your keyboard and mouse.
The immersion happens within yourself, so when your physical side is involved too much, it actually takes you OUT of the game, and makes it LESS immersive. This is what game corporations don't seem to understand.
Also, to make a narrow-field controller boggles my mind - you can use gamepad for gold, fighting games and baseball games, but you can only use the golf club for golf games and so on. Why would anyone buy something SO LIMITED?!
AVGN gets the skit vs. information-balance correct sometimes, but in this particular episode with the Sega accessories, there's barely even any commentary, it's about 99% 'skit' and 1% not even proper information whatsoever.
I want to know:
1) Does the thing work
2) How does it feel / what is the experience
3) How does it compare to conventional controllers
4) Is there any point of using it
5) How powerful is it (is the backpack actually painful, etc.)
But I get NO information.. I might just as well watch some stuntmen practicing on jumping on cardboard, and it would probably tell me more about Sega Accessories and whatnot.
I am sort of conflicted, as I want to be fair, but I also see the bad.
AVGN did give us a plethora of good stuff, but then something started happening, and we get sudden turds like this.
On the other hand, who would buy ANY of this awful junk they 'review' in the episode - even as an idea, it's mind-boggling that someone thought to make it.
AVGN and game corporations both have a 'blindness' problem. Corporations don't seem to understand, that it's better, if a game doesn't involve your whole body and physical activity, because you tire faster that way, and it DOES NOT ADD to the immersion, at least as much as some people obviously think. Playing a golf game on your gamepad, mouse and keyboard, or Wii controller is almost equally immersive. You are immersed in the game if you see, hear and control it - that's it.
It doesn't HAVE to involve any 3D-gimmick, your physical body, 'actual gun', 'actual golf club' or whatnot for you to enjoy it maximally. It does not ADD to the enjoyment that you have to ACTUALLY swing a bat, when you can just use gamepad and see the swing happen. I'd rather play Epyx's 'Street Sports Baseball' over ANY kind of 'super realistic virtual baseball' ANY day, because it will be more immersive, more fun, more quickly and has more personality, but most importantly involves your imagination.
AVGN's blindness comes from not always seeing what the perfect balance is - it's not enough to jump into cardboard for 15 minutes and throw styrofoam brix at some guy no one knows, you HAVE to have information as well. The NES accessories videos were good, they had some organic humor (like the Rollin' Rock and Roll 'n Rocker stuff) that didn't feel manufactured and scripted or over-the-top, but most importantly, they had actual commentary, experimentation and expression of the experience-result of that experimentation.
You need INFORMATION to balance out the skits - if you have 10% information and 90% 'skit', it doesn't work.
People really do have all kinds of opinions, but are you kidding me?
Atari 5200 episode is my FAVORITE by far, it's full of such great humor, and the musics fit the situations, and it is like a social commentary about the greedy eBay practices, sellers not understanding things or lying about them, the irrationality of a paperboy delivering newspapers by THROWING packages into people's heads and so on.
The only thing missing, is what I agree with you upon - he SHOULD've reviewed some games!
But the problem is, those same games exist pretty much in an identical form on the Atari 800 family, so we didn't lose much. Also, there's not that much that can be said about that era's simplistic console games that most Atari 2600 game reviews haven't pointed out already. The games are just simple fun, and not much else, there's not enough depth for a proper review.
I don't usually like AVGN's 'theatrical skits', I prefer the game footage with proper commentary, but that Atari 5200 episode is just all-around hilarious and well done, plus, VERY relatable for anyone tinkering with old game systems, computers and consoles.
"Dragons Lair"
Someone picked this as not a favorite - why? It's expertly done, he's on point in everything he says, he's passionate about it, and he ends it with a quick, poignant skit that proves a point - NO ONE should ever die from just WALKING TO A DOOR! It's hilarious, it shows off the game and it has proper sense of desperation about it. Maybe it's too short? I don't know, I really like that episode, though.
Ninja Gaiden is actually pretty cool, there's like a 'story progression' there, that's also relatable. However, I do agree that there are a bit too many 'skits' and not enough about the game itself.
Ikari Warriors didn't seem too bad, but I can't really remember it well, so who knows.
Dark Castle is actually a good episode, he's very good at making me never want to play that.
My worst is any Mike Matei one.
I could go on, but all I have to say is:
1) Read the F****NG MANUAL!
2) Play the original C64-version with ALL the events!
3) Realize the controls were MEANT for joystick, and are actually brilliant!
4) Get your head out of the 'NES-buttonmashing' donkey and realize slower controls work in a more precise way when you have a joystick.
5) Realize that your crappy criticism ONLY applies to the incredibly bad, rushed NES-port
6) Acknowledge that the C64-version has actually GREAT sound effects and music, and nothing like the NES-soundvomit that you play and describe in the video!
The ONLY reasons you even have any criticism is because you are using a gamepad for controls designed for joystick, you didn't read the manual, and you don't realize how AWFUL the rushed NES-port is compared to the ACTUALLY BRILLIANT original C64-version (and to a lesser extent, the more mediocre, but still good Amiga version).
Yes, the score IS saved, yes the namewriting IS well done, yes the music and soundworld ARE good, yes, there ARE plenty of events, yes, the controls actually DO make sense and are fun and good, yes, the graphics ARE actually beautiful - AND SO ON.
Give the darn original C64-version a chance and you will be embarrassed as to how WRONG you were when you think this crappy NES-version is 'Winter Games' in anything other than a name.
First, you have to realize the movements are not FAST, you can't just MASH BUTTONS in Epyx games, for crying out loud! They are slow and deliberate - first you have to push up, for example, and just as the skater is jumping, then you have to LAND CORRECTLY by pushing DOWN just as the skater is about to land - too early or too late, and you crash.
It also changes based on which way the skater is FACING, which AVGN didn't, again, take into account. You can't, for example, push right without crashing, if the skater is facing left and so on (can't remember if this is exact, I just wanted to give an example of how the controls work), but this guy just keeps mashing the pad randomly every which way.
Also, this event DOES use the button(s?), so what the heck is he talking about when he says they don't.. ?
His review would be fair if he said that all that he complains about the NES-version actually doesn't exist (or work properly) in the C64- and Amiga-versions, but he doesn't, so it isn't.
For example, the name typing screen is meant for a KEYBOARD, so there IS no 'character selection', you just type whatever name you want. That's it. Easy and painless.
Every 'bad thing' of the NES-version is either a 'good thing' in the C64-version, or doesn't exist on the C64-version. Also, the 'Hot Dog' ski jumper is SO much smoother and better animated on the C64-version, and you can get perfect 10.0 score by somersaulting forward, then somersaulting backward and landing perfectly. It's very difficult to pull off, but I managed to do it back in the day.. you know, with an actual JOYSTICK.
You can't fault a game for 'weird controls', when those controls were DESIGNED FOR JOYSTICK IN MIND, and work PERFECTLY if you do play the version that allows you to use a joystick! It's completely and utterly unfair - it's NOT weird at all for joystick, it's only weird because of the crappy PORT and gamepad!