Has TFS damaged the reputation of the franchise in the U.S.?

[Valerius Dover]

I really think the people criticizing Team Four Star are taking this way too seriously. It's a parody done by a group of fans who love the series and would like to share that in the form of a parody. It's a bunch of people just trying to have fun and hopefully bring other people into the fun. Why criticize them for that? If people perceive there to be something wrong, it's all in their heads. It's about what message you choose to take out of it. I see it as harmless fun, and well-made at that. I say, keep up the great work, guys!

[VegettoEX]

I don't see why someone wouldn't be allowed to critically analyze anything put out for public consumption, regardless of whether or not it's made for profit, by a company, by an individual, or whatever. It exists and it's out there. It's been put out there. Art is there to critique, enjoy, learn from, object to, etc.

The instant you say, "Nope! You can't say anything bad about that!" you've immediately started down a dangerous slippery slope.

Critique away (in an awesome, friendly, constructive, productive way). That's what a discussion area is for.

(And this is all coming from someone who likes Abridged a decent amount.)

[KaiserNeko]

I don't see why someone wouldn't be allowed to critically analyze anything put out for public consumption, regardless of whether or not it's made for profit, by a company, by an individual, or whatever. It exists and it's out there. It's been put out there. Art is there to critique, enjoy, learn from, object to, etc.

The instant you say, "Nope! You can't say anything bad about that!" you've immediately started down a dangerous slippery slope.

Critique away (in an awesome, friendly, constructive, productive way). That's what a discussion area is for.

(And this is all coming from someone who likes Abridged a decent amount.)

I hope it doesn't sound like I don't welcome criticism.

[Valerius Dover]

I wasn't really talking about the more constructive criticism that goes on, though. I simply meant that I don't think they have damaged the franchise's reputation. I apologize if my post came off wrong.

[rereboy]

I don't see why someone wouldn't be allowed to critically analyze anything put out for public consumption, regardless of whether or not it's made for profit, by a company, by an individual, or whatever. It exists and it's out there. It's been put out there. Art is there to critique, enjoy, learn from, object to, etc.

The instant you say, "Nope! You can't say anything bad about that!" you've immediately started down a dangerous slippery slope.

Critique away (in an awesome, friendly, constructive, productive way). That's what a discussion area is for.

(And this is all coming from someone who likes Abridged a decent amount.)

That's all true, but Abridged, as a parody, should be reviewed and criticized on whether or not its funny and entertaining, since that's its sole purpose.

Beyond that, we already are over-analyzing it.

[VegettoEX]

That's all true, but Abridged, as a parody, should be reviewed and criticized on whether or not its funny and entertaining, since that's its sole purpose.

I respectfully but vehemently disagree.

If you're only allowed to judge art on its personal entertainment value rather than its impact on culture/community/language/etc., then you've locked off arguably its biggest aspect. So what if it's "just a parody"...? It's worth judging from so many angles.

That's what makes art interesting.

[ImmaDeker]

So, if a stand up comedian starts to talk about the hard time his wife gives him every time he goes out, I should just start to over-analyze his jokes and consider his inspiration for the jokes, the probability that those jokes are founded on his own current relationship or previous ones, the anthropological meaning for our society that such a situation is so stereotypical than it becomes funny for most people, the psychological disposition of the comedian that allows him to talk about his wife in public like that whether its actually true or not, the possibility that that particular brand of humor might become even more popular and the probable consequences of such a thing on society, and so on?

SHOULD you?

Not if you don't want to.

CAN you?

Yes, if such is your inclination. Hell, someone once asked me why I thought Nick Swardson was funny but hated Dane Cook, despite both having similar wheelhouses, and I was able to explain every facet of why, pointing out everything from one comedian's delivery compared to another, the structure of the jokes within that delivery, etc. Neither are high brow entertainment, but I'm no comedy Nazi myself and love me some juvenile humor. Not everyone has to do that, but just because some people CAN doesn't mean your specific, individual fun is ruined because someone has the audacity to not like what you like.

My problem with the comparison is that it insinuates stand up comedy and anime fan footage parodies are basically the same which, no, they're not. Fan footage parodies are meme machines, even at their best (which is demonstrably citable at this point, let's be fair) and are designed almost exclusively to do the Fredberg and Seltzer style humor, such as it, based upon the recognition of iconography rather than jokes about the iconography itself. DBZA largely goes away from this by this point because, as referenced before, learning experience, but it tends to implode upon itself with its own memes, ala ENDLESS Piccolo/Nail banter that does nothing but fill space with the exact same joke over and over and over and over and over cuz footage, where they kinda stop being running gags and are just reminding you something exists. Abridged as a parody only understands maybe the most basic concept of parody to the extent of "make fun of thing", even though there's a liiiiittle more to it than that when you think about the good parodies around.

A comedy set, or y'know, a GOOD one is generally a series of anecdotes (some becoming iconic, yes) based upon personal observation or a core gimmick, but there's improvisation and crowdwork, cultivating a varied personality and character, making sure your performance has an arc to it and that escalation rises. You're doing a performance and putting yourself into a situation of IMMEDIATE vulnerability, rather than the more post-work, reflective vulnerability of a video production. There're comedians who've mastered the work that goes into integrating hecklers and dissenters into their act, the social focus required to keep your cool and make it all feel natural without throwing off your flow, having the improvisation to make it less noticeable if you need to make your act go off course, etc. There's a lot of preparation and preparation for disaster that goes into a good comedy set.

And I like to think it goes without saying, even excluding whatever biases I may have, that "a narrative short film based on previously known, iconic characters strung together to a narrative" is not even the same as "an orator stands in front of a crowd and tells a sequence of anecdotes based upon a singular personality and character to serve as an entire frame of reference" on a basic, structural level. The two are not developed, approached, or written the same way by even a long shot nor is their delivery of content or context of narrative even remotely the same, making comparison between the two and how they should be regarded similarly as fairly faulty. I would think this would never have to be explained on a board dedicated to discussing the composition of fiction, but like many times in life, I have been proven wrong before.

And theology? Where did that come from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_gag

It very much is a moral point, at least more so than it is 'demolishing something I like'. Abridged is a nice icing on top of my Dragon Ball fandom, but it's far from my favorite part of it. If people don't like it, that's fine; and likewise I get just as annoyed at people over quoting it as anyone else does. And as far as if this was targeted towards something I don't like, then you're right to a degree - it wouldn't bother me as much. That's only natural. But again, what rubs me the wrong way isn't that it's against something I like, it's the overly pretentious way in which you're doing it. It's just an attitude that I cannot stand, in regards to anything, really. It's the same way that 'dur hur Narutard sucks' and 'Oh my god let's make another Twilight riff' get old fast - if you don't like something, at least in my opinion, it's a lot more productive to just say so and move on, rather than sit there continually bashing it.

There're a couple problems with this. The first being that the extent of my TFS discussion has been within this thread and I...don't really talk about it in other places? So the idea that you're telling me to stop continually bashing something ala Naruto or Twilight (both of which I don't personally like, but find fascinating to discuss and find them way more interesting than an Abridged parody. For starters, I don't quite understand why people don't think Edward's a "real vampire.") is kind of faulty from my perspective. I DON'T go around doing that and only voiced my opinion here when I saw the thread and seeing it as an open discussion people WERE ALREADY HAVING. I'm a drastic late comer to this thread. And if this one specific thread, on this specific board, constitutes the same as going around bashing something everywhere like a broken record in your mind, then not only do you either

A.) Assume WAY too much with what I'm doing with my free time

or

B.) Are just buttmad

but you also seem to think you can tell another grown ass man what he can and can't talk about. I may think Rereboy's comparison is awful, but he's still allowed to make that comparison. I may not think KaiserNeko and his team do good work, but they're allowed to do that good work. I can explain why I hate it, but nothing is telling or saying what they're doing SHOULdN'T be done. And I give Rereboy some credit for at least giving me the frame of reference from which he pulled his comparison, even if I think it's badonkers. I don't tell them DON'T. I just tell them, in the context of this conversation, why I don't care for it personally or think it is either unlikable or incorrect.

Whereas you straight up say "I do not like seeing people talk about this thing in a bad way and I would rather OTHER people stop talking, lest I inconvenience myself by having to avoid a conversation I presumably do not enjoy anyway." You want ME to stop for YOUR convenience. It's not even that you're explaining why it's dumb that I do, which would be more acceptable. You're straight up saying "I am annoyed, stop doing this, this is a thing I don't like personally." So you can express people doing something you wish would stop and that's fine, but I can't (and I don't even go as far as you do)?

So if this really is a moral point, it's a pretty stupid one that you could easily avoid (and it'd make you less of a hypocrite). But you take the route of wanting to articulate what thoughts, and to what intensities, people are and aren't allowed to say because GOD FORBID YOU'RE IRRITATED.

And the joke with Yamcha: No, the joke wasn't incredibly creative, but not every single joke is going to be as good as the last, or the next. I mean for crying out loud, even Mel Brooks padded a ton of his gold with silver and bronze. (Not comparing ourselves to Mel Brooks, just using him as an extreme example.)

But you are comparing yourselves to Mel Brooks. You're not comparing your talent to his, but you are making a comparison to justify something people dislike even though you are okay with people disliking your things. But yes, you are making a Mel Brooks comparison and the other side is yourself.

(If you can be super specific and nitpicky about stuff like my broad statements referencing a singular GT joke, I can be super nitpicky about your wording).

Here's one final thing I want to make very clear, and by final I mean one of many things because you're probably gonna keep replying.

I'm just a bit perturbed here that some people feel the need to be as condescending and harsh about this as ImmaDeker has been. I don't care if he doesn't enjoy our work, but the sort of wording and attitude he's used has been outright insulting. Especially considering the time and effort we put into each episode, how we try and work in such a limiting medium. I understand if it's not a person's cup of tea, but ultimately some of you have just been tearing into it to try and tell everyone why it's apparently objectively terrible when, ultimately, I don't understand why.

You think this is bad? I've worked on projects where my producer and collaborators tossed out the entirety of my contributions even after spending DAYS in a row trying to salvage a dying project. I've had submissions to both contests and possible work opportunities torn to shit and back for reasons I didn't understand, even during the rare times they actually felt the need to explain it to me (and for the most part, they don't give enough of a shit to). So I guess I don't understand why you're "perturbed" by someone being mean because I just think it's adorable that you find THIS perturbing because, man, this is fucking nothing. And believe me, I've had buns in the oven that would be some mockworthy, turdy shit (there's SOME contextual difference between us, granted, but still).

Here's the thing, though, and why I think your prior arguments of professionalism (which I guess aren't relevant anymore) and this next quoted point are full of utter shit:

Edit: The main thing I think that bothers me is that... the main reason I even started the show in general is because I wanted to have fun with the series I grew up with. Poke some fun at it's flaws, play the big moments with some gravitas, toy around with some character traits. And over time, it grew, and while it's heavily flawed, we're always trying to make it better while still playing to the style we started with. We've worked so hard to eliminate references-as-jokes from the series that aren't, at the very least, directly tied into something DragonBall related, we've tried to flesh out characters and create arcs for them. We're always trying to improve, because god knows I LOVE making this series and so do the people I work with. When it comes to DragonBall Z, we know the writing isn't amazing, and the truth is we did that in part to ourselves by the limits both created and inherent to this style.

But we're not being lazy, even with the movies. If you wanted lazy, I assure you, it wouldn't take a month per episode for 9-12 minutes of material.

http://sharkrobot.com/collections/team-four-star

I checked your website entirely on a lark and, sure enough, a store. Now, I'm not going to assume you sell enough merchandise to have any meaningful profit and the bank you get from this is probably surface scratch at best (and I assume Shark Robot has some sort of distribution fee or cut of profits?), but this is what I want to emphasize: regardless of your big arguments about "LOOK, I'M JUST DOING THIS OUT OF LOVE HOW COULD SOMEONE HATE IT THIS MUCH", you have cultivated a brand. You have created a product from which you see possible, even if minor or secondary, monetary gain from. You are a brand, i.e. an economic or abstract meme which exists as a form of shorthand for communication, interaction, and identity.

And yet, you don't act like one. You're in the nebulous space where you seem to think this is a good enough product to create a brand out of, but NOT intellectually processing it as enough of a brand that someone's dislike of it can just go unmolested. You have to continue to emphasize that this is a thing of fan love and existing ONLY as this learning experience (which it is), yet neglect the fact you've commercialized it to the extent you're capable of doing.

Imagine if every time you thought someone's product within their brand was lazy. Is there a Dragonball thing you didn't like, that you thought was written, animated, or edited so poorly you assumed laziness? Imagine if that screewnriter, animator, or editor came up to you when you claimed that and proceeded to answer, not with an actual expression of effort, but just how much he loves his project (and then with maybe one expression of bare bones effort, i.e. "Well it takes this long", which time=effort tends to be a case by case basis, unless you never thought an episode of Family Guy or something felt lazier than the last even though every product of that brand takes the same amount of time to produce) and how he doesn't understand how someone could think what he did was so bad. Imagine if he kept doing this to you.

ADDENDUM: Hell, Episode of Bardock has interviews indicating its creator is a huge Bardock fan and loves the character and liked getting the chance to do a Bardock story in the newer Dragonball canon. Does your parody that literally is just "Look at how stupid this is" suddenly become more tasteless in that context?

You want your series to be a product that can be consumed and turned into a brand, but you don't seem to be able to process the fact that comes with people who won't like what you do. You SAY you don't, you say you don't mind if people dislike your work, but this honestly feels like a lie. What's the honest to God difference between someone not liking what you do and someone not liking what you do, but more intensely and across your entire genre? When you read history or English books in school, surely you read about different waves and stylistic trends in art and literature. Surely you'd known or had discussed within those schooling situations. Surely you heard someone hate all of dubstep, all of rap, all of [INSERT RECENT STYLE OF FUCKING ANYTHING] here. What's the difference between a harsh dislike of a stylistic shift across a certain type of media and disliking yours specifically, in the grand scheme of things? Or someone holding both simultaneously.

For all your successes on a level of reception from audience, to branding, to having it as a path to do new things, at the end of the day, you and your defenders seem content on reminding people it's "just a fan parody." It's really not. It's a commercialized, unsanctioned brand you use as a springboard to the creative endeavors of people you advertise with a body of work.

Yet when someone doesn't like it, suddenly it becomes fanfic and its values are placed on its position as a loving fan tribute. Do these two things together seem right to you?

I am totally fine with you doing what you do. I don't begrudge the success or the love you've gotten for it. Hell, I don't even begrudge the love you have for it. It's your style, your work, you do it and you do it how you want!

But what rational person could possibly respect the flimsy outlook you have?

[rereboy]

That's all true, but Abridged, as a parody, should be reviewed and criticized on whether or not its funny and entertaining, since that's its sole purpose.

I respectfully but vehemently disagree.

If you're only allowed to judge art on its personal entertainment value rather than its impact on culture/community/language/etc., then you've locked off arguably its biggest aspect. So what if it's "just a parody"...? It's worth judging from so many angles.

That's what makes art interesting.

You are treating art like everything is the same kind of art. Comedies can have significant and interesting effects on a community and even society and there are lots of things going on inside of it that we can reflect upon, but in their case we must distinguish between the "consumer" eye and a "scholar" eye.

When we look at it as consumers, a "scholar" eye is simply not adequate. It pretty much ruins the experience. Sure, you can analyze it with a "scholar" eye, but in doing so you are removing yourself from the kind of position that the comedy aims at. You begin to analyze it from outside of it, if you will. You can do that if you find it appealing, but you can't really expect to appreciate it correctly from that kind of position. That's the distinction that has been mentioned in this topic, I believe.

Other kinds of art are much different from that and a "scholar" eye doesn't ruin the experience nearly as much or it might even be required on some level to truly appreciate what the authors were trying to transmit in their work.

And if I use my "scholar" eye to analyze the impact of Team4star, I notice that it has been a positive impact due to their amazing quality and professionalism that has managed to rejuvenate the interest of many in the franchise and added yet another source of entertainment relative to the franchise to the established fans. Fears or opinions that it replaces anything in the existing franchise or fandom are unfounded since it doesn't aim or succeeds to replace any official english dub and its inherent purposes. Those who might prefer to watch the parody instead of the official version are simply pursuing different goals than those achieved with the actual show.

SHOULD you?

Not if you don't want to.

CAN you?

Yes, if such is your inclination.

Sure, and have it ruin the experience, which was what was being mentioned by me and others. Everything else I had to say on the matter, I've already stated it in response to VegettoEX.

[ABED]

If you're only allowed to judge art on its personal entertainment value rather than its impact on culture/community/language/etc., then you've locked off arguably its biggest aspect. So what if it's "just a parody"...? It's worth judging from so many angles.

That's what makes art interesting.

I don't see how art's macro-impact is it's biggest aspect. Art is profoundly personal, both to the artist and to the observer/listener. I agree that art is worth judging from many different angles even if it is something as seemingly trivial as a parody, but I don't think that's what make it interesting.

Rereboy, I can see your point though I don't necessarily think picking apart a joke ruins the ability to appreciate it.

[rereboy]

Rereboy, I can see your point though I don't necessarily think picking apart a joke ruins the ability to appreciate it.

You only become unable to appreciate properly it while you are pursuing the "scholar" eye. The moment that you step back from it, obviously you are fully capable of appreciating it.

[ABED]

Rereboy, I can see your point though I don't necessarily think picking apart a joke ruins the ability to appreciate it.

You only become unable to appreciate properly it while you are pursuing the "scholar" eye. The moment that you step back from it, obviously you are fully capable of appreciating it.

I'm not sure what you mean by scholar eye. Humor mainly functions on subverting expectations. However, after you hear a joke many times, it loses it's effect. You may still enjoy it, but it's not nearly as funny as when you first heard it. At that point, I think it's fine to dissect it and see how it works, in which case I think it's arguable that you can gain greater appreciation for it.

[Piccolo Daimaoh]

I also think reviews of something should also factor in whether or not it's already been done, regardless of whether it's funny or entertaining in the first place (totally not saying this applies to TFS ). So, in that sense, you are looking at the context around a certain product.

[KaiserNeko]

http://sharkrobot.com/collections/team-four-star

I checked your website entirely on a lark and, sure enough, a store. Now, I'm not going to assume you sell enough merchandise to have any meaningful profit and the bank you get from this is probably surface scratch at best (and I assume Shark Robot has some sort of distribution fee or cut of profits?), but this is what I want to emphasize: regardless of your big arguments about "LOOK, I'M JUST DOING THIS OUT OF LOVE HOW COULD SOMEONE HATE IT THIS MUCH", you have cultivated a brand. You have created a product from which you see possible, even if minor or secondary, monetary gain from. You are a brand, i.e. an economic or abstract meme which exists as a form of shorthand for communication, interaction, and identity.

And yet, you don't act like one. You're in the nebulous space where you seem to think this is a good enough product to create a brand out of, but NOT intellectually processing it as enough of a brand that someone's dislike of it can just go unmolested. You have to continue to emphasize that this is a thing of fan love and existing ONLY as this learning experience (which it is), yet neglect the fact you've commercialized it to the extent you're capable of doing.

Imagine if every time you thought someone's product within their brand was lazy. Is there a Dragonball thing you didn't like, that you thought was written, animated, or edited so poorly you assumed laziness? Imagine if that screewnriter, animator, or editor came up to you when you claimed that and proceeded to answer, not with an actual expression of effort, but just how much he loves his project (and then with maybe one expression of bare bones effort, i.e. "Well it takes this long", which time=effort tends to be a case by case basis, unless you never thought an episode of Family Guy or something felt lazier than the last even though every product of that brand takes the same amount of time to produce) and how he doesn't understand how someone could think what he did was so bad. Imagine if he kept doing this to you.

ADDENDUM: Hell, Episode of Bardock has interviews indicating its creator is a huge Bardock fan and loves the character and liked getting the chance to do a Bardock story in the newer Dragonball canon. Does your parody that literally is just "Look at how stupid this is" suddenly become more tasteless in that context?

You want your series to be a product that can be consumed and turned into a brand, but you don't seem to be able to process the fact that comes with people who won't like what you do. You SAY you don't, you say you don't mind if people dislike your work, but this honestly feels like a lie. What's the honest to God difference between someone not liking what you do and someone not liking what you do, but more intensely and across your entire genre? When you read history or English books in school, surely you read about different waves and stylistic trends in art and literature. Surely you'd known or had discussed within those schooling situations. Surely you heard someone hate all of dubstep, all of rap, all of [INSERT RECENT STYLE OF FUCKING ANYTHING] here. What's the difference between a harsh dislike of a stylistic shift across a certain type of media and disliking yours specifically, in the grand scheme of things? Or someone holding both simultaneously.

For all your successes on a level of reception from audience, to branding, to having it as a path to do new things, at the end of the day, you and your defenders seem content on reminding people it's "just a fan parody." It's really not. It's a commercialized, unsanctioned brand you use as a springboard to the creative endeavors of people you advertise with a body of work.

Yet when someone doesn't like it, suddenly it becomes fanfic and its values are placed on its position as a loving fan tribute. Do these two things together seem right to you?

I am totally fine with you doing what you do. I don't begrudge the success or the love you've gotten for it. Hell, I don't even begrudge the love you have for it. It's your style, your work, you do it and you do it how you want!

But what rational person could possibly respect the flimsy outlook you have?

You know what?

Fuck it. You're almost absolutely right.

I take issue with the manner of which you speak about the projects I work on and I disagree with some of your opinions on comedy, but ultimately: You don't really care whether or not you insult someone with your honest opinions and, when it comes down to it, it's up to me whether or not I take and criticism from someone and how I respond when I do. I could take issue with your tone and choice of language, your perspective on comedy and the subgenre in which we work, but it doesn't matter.

DragonBall Z Abridged as a brand? I'd debate that to a certain extent... but you might just be largely correct on that as well.

Honestly, how we write DBZA has changed as we've had our audience grow. There are times where we worry whether or not we're going to insult a group of people or whether or not certain jokes will go over peoples heads, and have rewritten. Because when it comes down to it, we're still playing to an audience and, as someone who wants to be an entertainer, I value the response we receive. On the other side of that coin, I've always been a big fan of taking an audience's expectations and flipping them. I will say this: The shirts, the Let's Plays, they're all supplementary. If nobody supported either, we'd probably have had to quit making the show because our lives would have become too obsessed with work and other endeavors. DBZA isn't made for making money. The money is made so we can make DBZA.

Also food.

Time=/=effort. You're right, ostensibly. But unlike Family Guy, we don't have a schedule to adhere to, a professional studio with a budget, etc. We work at our own pace, on our own time, on our own money, etc. We also don't have the luxury of being able to coast on an entire Star Wars special because Fox refused to let Seth McFarland work on his movie. We're not an official, licensed, full-time production with livelihoods on the line. We're a fan-production with silly shirts and Let's Play videos to try and keep us barely above minimum wage as so we can do more with our lives. Again, you're still right that time=/=effort. But you're making a pretty big assumption of how much time and effort we do put into each production, honestly, if you think we're being lazy.

So, in conclusion: I don't care if you don't like the show, abridging, etc. I just took issue with the manner of which you decided to criticize our work, as well as the perspective you have on it, so I wanted to discuss it, but find that in the end: I need to just let this shit go. You have your own perspective on the industry and, honestly, I actually agree with you largely. I just found myself admittedly insulted and offended, likely because I felt like you were openly insulting my work ethic, and decided to engage. Engaging you wasn't necessarily the issue, though; I just need to step back and be less agitated by your callousness. Especially considering that, yes, it's not nearly as bad as plenty of individuals in the industry.

Sorry for the overly involved engagement here.

You are treating art like everything is the same kind of art. Comedies can have significant and interesting effects on a community and even society and there are lots of things going on inside of it that we can reflect upon, but in their case we must distinguish between the "consumer" eye and a "scholar" eye.

When we look at it as consumers, a "scholar" eye is simply not adequate. It pretty much ruins the experience. Sure, you can analyze it with a "scholar" eye, but in doing so you are removing yourself from the kind of position that the comedy aims at. You begin to analyze it from outside of it, if you will. You can do that if you find it appealing, but you can't really expect to appreciate it correctly from that kind of position. That's the distinction that has been mentioned in this topic, I believe.

Other kinds of art are much different from that and a "scholar" eye doesn't ruin the experience nearly as much or it might even be required on some level to truly appreciate what the authors were trying to transmit in their work.

To be completely honest, I'm with Mike one this one. While I think you make a wonderful point about perspective, the truth is that some people cannot separate themselves from the scholar's perspective. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, though i think in certain cases, I do think some critics may fail to see why certain pieces of comedy are legitimately effective.

Of course, when it comes to the topic of comedy, I think speaking in absolutes in terms of quality can often be a perilous endeavor. There's a lot of experience, in both field and study, that factor into the criticism of comedy. However, there are plenty of angles to approach from in terms of how to be an effective comedian and, honest to god, comedy is one of the hardest to treat objectively. You cannot treat our show as you would a stand up comedians work, just as ImmaDeker said. You also have to account for a certain audience and what their tastes are. It must be asked: What is the true measure of good comedy? Is it the size of the audience it satisfies? Is it the quality of the audience? Is the audience not a factor at all? Or is it part audience, part objective quality? As well, bringing in your own biases and preconceived notions about a project can very easily alter your perspective and judgment. If I hate country music, I'm likely not going to like a country song, but does that mean the song is bad? God knows I've got a better head on my shoulders than to decry an entire genre that is loved my plenty of folk... though the numbers game is a dubious measure of quality, all things considered.

There's a lot to account for, honestly. But when it comes down to it: It's up to each individual person to approach art (in all it's many facets) how they see fit. Either as a consumer or as a scholar. If you can reasonably balance both? Wonderful. But even if one has an issue separating themselves from the scholar's point of view, that's their prerogative. If one take an issue with their assessment, then by all means engage, but it's not that they were necessarily wrong.

[rereboy]

I'm not sure what you mean by scholar eye. Humor mainly functions on subverting expectations. However, after you hear a joke many times, it loses it's effect. You may still enjoy it, but it's not nearly as funny as when you first heard it. At that point, I think it's fine to dissect it and see how it works, in which case I think it's arguable that you can gain greater appreciation for it.

Scholar eye is an critical eye that actively wonders and seeks what's beneath the surface. Regarding a joke, it might be the analysis of the timing of each word, the conscious reflexion of the comedian mannerisms and expressions, the cultural significance of its contents, the conscious pursuit to determine the reason for its effectiveness in being humorous, etc.

All this can be very helpful if you want to appreciate the joke in a more objective manner, but it will only increase or decrease what you consider to be its objective value after you've taken in the joke in a more relaxed manner, with a consumer eye. If you do not, and start off with the mindset of a scholar eye as you take the joke instead, the joke will hardly be effective since you are putting yourself in a position that you are not meant to be as when you encounter the joke, and your over-analytical stance will ruin it.

I don't see how Abridged is significantly different. I can surely use my scholar eye to analyze its jokes and situations in a analytical view and determine a objective value to it, but that can only be actually useful if I put myself first in a position that allows me to appreciate its humor. Now, I realize that Abridged is a little different from a simple joke or a stand-up because there's actually some stuff there for the viewers to appreciate that is not necessarily on the surface and that might require some scholar eye to fully appreciate, and as such, the show would not be as ruined by a permanent scholar eye as a simple joke. However, it would still severely damage the experience to have a critical and analytical stance from the get go. Like pretty all all humor, it requires first a consumer eye, an appropriate relaxed and neutral position in order to be effective, and only then, perhaps a more scholar eye, to detect particularities that might enrich the experience or not.

[ABED]

I'm not sure what you mean by scholar eye. Humor mainly functions on subverting expectations. However, after you hear a joke many times, it loses it's effect. You may still enjoy it, but it's not nearly as funny as when you first heard it. At that point, I think it's fine to dissect it and see how it works, in which case I think it's arguable that you can gain greater appreciation for it.

Scholar eye is an critical eye that actively wonders and seeks what's beneath the surface. Regarding a joke, it might be the analysis of the timing of each word, the value after you've taken in the joke in a more relaxed manner, with a consumer eye. If you do not and start off with the mindset of a scholar eye as you take the joke, conscious reflexion of the comedian mannerisms and expressions, the cultural significance of its contents, the conscious pursuit to determine the reason for its effectiveness in being humorous, etc.

All this can be very helpful if you want to appreciate the joke in a more objective manner, but all it will only increase or decrease what you consider to be its objective the joke will hardly be effective since you are putting yourself in a position that you are not meant to be as when you encounter the joke, and your over-analytical stance will ruin it.

I don't see how Abridged is significantly different. I can surely use my scholar eye to analyze its jokes and situations in a analytical view and determine a objective value to it, but that can only be actually useful if I put myself first in a position that allows me to appreciate its humor. Now, I realize that Abridged is a little different from a simple joke or a stand-up because there's actually some stuff there for the viewers to appreciate that is not necessarily on the surface and that might require some scholar eye to fully appreciate, and as such, the show would not be as ruined by a permanent scholar eye as a simple joke. However, it would still severely damage the experience to have a critical and analytical stance from the get go. Like pretty all all humor, it requires first a consumer eye, an appropriate relaxed and neutral position in order to be effective, and only then, perhaps a more scholar eye, to detect particularities that might enrich the experience or not.

It won't ruin it. I can take a step back, and by the time I'm analyzing something like a joke, I've pretty much worn it into the ground already and it is no longer making me laugh.

[ImmaDeker]

I like that the scholarly eye argument implies I'm incapable of finding things funny because I'm too analytical despite already admitting to enjoying the simplistic frat boy farce of Nick Swardson and Power Rangers comics for six year olds. If anything, I'm an oafish, easily pleased simpleton. (EDIT: I just remembered I've called myself a Filthy Frank fan. Oh yeah, scholarly eye's really got me killed there.)

"He doesn't like Dragonball Z Abridged" is actually the source of a debate about people being too analytical to experience joy. Are you fucking joking? You actually leap to "He can't experience joy" before leaping to "Maybe he just thinks it's shitty." This is fucking incredible.

Because you know, if someone doesn't like what you like, the problem HAS to be with him.

[dae428]

I'm not sure what you mean by scholar eye. Humor mainly functions on subverting expectations. However, after you hear a joke many times, it loses it's effect. You may still enjoy it, but it's not nearly as funny as when you first heard it. At that point, I think it's fine to dissect it and see how it works, in which case I think it's arguable that you can gain greater appreciation for it.

Scholar eye is an critical eye that actively wonders and seeks what's beneath the surface. Regarding a joke, it might be the analysis of the timing of each word, the conscious reflexion of the comedian mannerisms and expressions, the cultural significance of its contents, the conscious pursuit to determine the reason for its effectiveness in being humorous, etc.

All this can be very helpful if you want to appreciate the joke in a more objective manner, but it will only increase or decrease what you consider to be its objective value after you've taken in the joke in a more relaxed manner, with a consumer eye. If you do not, and start off with the mindset of a scholar eye as you take the joke instead, the joke will hardly be effective since you are putting yourself in a position that you are not meant to be as when you encounter the joke, and your over-analytical stance will ruin it.

I don't see how Abridged is significantly different. I can surely use my scholar eye to analyze its jokes and situations in a analytical view and determine a objective value to it, but that can only be actually useful if I put myself first in a position that allows me to appreciate its humor. Now, I realize that Abridged is a little different from a simple joke or a stand-up because there's actually some stuff there for the viewers to appreciate that is not necessarily on the surface and that might require some scholar eye to fully appreciate, and as such, the show would not be as ruined by a permanent scholar eye as a simple joke. However, it would still severely damage the experience to have a critical and analytical stance from the get go. Like pretty all all humor, it requires first a consumer eye, an appropriate relaxed and neutral position in order to be effective, and only then, perhaps a more scholar eye, to detect particularities that might enrich the experience or not.

I can understand where you're coming from. (I think...) From how I see it. When it comes to certain things particularly comedy. Sometimes it is best not to analyze every single aspect of a joke as doing so would ruin the joke and even cause you to see aspects of it that aren't really even there. I'm guessing that sometimes, not all the time, its best to just sit down, turn your noggin off and just enjoy something for what it is. An example that comes to mind is the father protagonist from Finding Nemo who tries to say a joke in the beginning of the movie with his new parent peers only to over analyze the joke and cause his listeners to grimace at his pathetic attempt. Another example that comes to mind is the song I am the Walrus by the Beatles. The lyrics make absolutely no sense and to analyze them would only cause your brain to rupture. You're probably just better off enjoying the song as some nonsensical tune that involves the singer proclaiming that he is a walrus. Of course I'm not saying that jokes and songs should not be analyzed especially if your passionate about them. All I'm saying is that sometimes its best to take something for what it is, especially if it helps you get through it either more easily or more enjoyably. You know, just take it how you want to take it.

Also, I don't necessarily think that TFS has damaged the reputation of the franchise in the U.S. that much if even. I, for instance, have felt compelled to rewatch Dragon Ball Z after checking out some of their work in order to better appreciate the source material. Honestly, the people that take DBZ Abridged as a means to how Dragon Ball Z actually is were probably never fans or that big of a fan of the series to begin with. I feel like these are the people who see Dragon Ball Z as a bunch of overly-muscled freaks who are constantly shouting and flexing their muscles. You know the guys who followed that stupid "It's over 9000!" bandwagon. One thing I can also say is that while TFS does show off some of the typical, "oh Krillin always sucks" and "Goku's a stupid moron" I feel that they also do follow the series fairly well in regards to plot. While to some this may come off as lazy, this was honestly what made me go back to the original once more. Watching the series made me think hmmm... how did the original anime go again... I know my points aren't necessarily clear, but what I'm trying to say is that in the long run, I feel that while the series does exemplify some of the stereotypes that plague Dragon Ball Z, they are still respectful and clearly do understand to the source material. To me that is what I feel a good parody is; something that respects the source material while still poking fun at the series. Also, TFS I feel is largely a give and take scenario where they may pull some away some people from the original Dragon Ball Z series while also bringing some people in because of its nature as a parody.

[Gyt Kaliba]

I'm done debating this with you Deker, lest I say something that would get me temp or even perma-banned. I'm just done. You are completely side-stepping my points in the most convoluted, roundabout manner I have ever seen, in an attempt to make it out like my issue with your attitude in this thread is that you don't like Abridged...which I have said repeatedly is not the problem. I don't care one way or the other if you like Abridged. I don't even care one way or another if you like the same characters or story arcs in DBZ that I do. What I do care about though is the way things are stated, and the fact remains that you are stating many things as if they are facts rather than your own opinions. I am not 'butthurt' that you don't like 'what I find funny'. I am 'butthurt' that you are being as pretentious as possible so as to validate your opinion over others.

I also still do not see the appeal of analyzing something to this degree, ever. If that's what some people want to do, then VegettoEX is right, that's certainly their way of doing things, and I should respect that as well, even if I don't understand it. But it boggles my mind, completely. Not every piece of entertainment has to have all of these "hidden meanings" and "themes". Some things are just good, honest, fun, and in my opinion, should be treated as such. For me, Dragon Ball in general is very much one of those things. There are light layers to be observed of course, such as Toriyama's not-so-great use of female characters as one example off the top of my head, but to dig much deeper than that...again, I just don't see the appeal.

But either way, I've said my piece. I'm not going to go round and round with you on this one again, as I value my membership on this forum too highly to jeopardize it arguing with you further.

[ImmaDeker]

DragonBall Z Abridged as a brand? I'd debate that to a certain extent... but you might just be largely correct on that as well.

Your production team is called TeamFourStar and your avatar is a logo with four Dragonball stars.

Preeeetty sure you can't debate that this all isn't a brand. Even if it's all done to pay for itself (which...you know, is how most animated productions aka brands work. As one example, action show toy sales pay for production of the show, etc.).

(Though for real, kudos on being a champ in all this.)

I also still do not see the appeal of analyzing something to this degree, ever. If that's what some people want to do, then VegettoEX is right, that's certainly their way of doing things, and I should respect that as well, even if I don't understand it. But it boggles my mind, completely. Not every piece of entertainment has to have all of these "hidden meanings" and "themes". Some things are just good, honest, fun, and in my opinion, should be treated as such.

You have this big uptight thing about people enjoying things differently from you and thus they don't like certain things as a result. That seems like something worth working out.

But no this thread is sincerely hilarious and I never want it to end. Am I still a pretentious scholar if my favorite Dragonball show is GT? Can we talk about why I love GT?

[Kamiccolo9]

I would appreciate if you all would drop this current line of discussion, or at least move it to a new thread. This thread is already way off-topic, and may have run its course, seeing as the initial question has already been more or less answered.