MovieChat Forums > avortac4
avatar

avortac4 (3289)


Posts


Directive 4's weird 'explosion' makes no sense "I can feel them, but I can't remember them" makes no sense The photo makes no sense part MCMLXXXV This show is Space Cop The problem with this show (and some others) Did ANYONE 'proofwatch' this? The anachronisms (among other things) make no sense Richter makes no sense 'Real' vs. 'Implant Memory' makes no sense "See you at the party, Richter!" makes no sense View all posts >


Replies


"Lewis is resposinsible for Murphys death" First of all, you need an apostrophe for possessive - it's " Murphy's ", not " Murphys ". Second of all, Murphy DOES NOT DIE in this movie. What is the last word of dialogue said by someone clearly still alive in this movie? Think about it. So your post makes no sense. What's weird to me, is that even Hank's wife knows that coal-grilled food tastes much better than propane-grilled food, and Hank remains blissfully ignorant that he's married to a traitor and a liar. Hank pushes propane everywhere he goes (though it's never explained why he loves propane so much), but doesn't ever realize that coal is better for grilling food, even after agreeing that said food tastes better (I think in that episode he rationalizes that the reason is something else). I think these TV shows would be so much better, if they had some kind of stance, some kind of point, some kind of important and poignant story people want to tell, for example, about this planet, its weird world, and how wrong certain everyday things in it are, and what we could at least try to do to change those things. Instad, it's about silly stories that go nowhere, or have no meaning whatsoever. In the end, it's all about money first, and all about entertainment second, and that's all we get. At least they could try harder to be funny. ".. there was nothing "grounded" or "subtle" about King of the Hill. It was nothing but the "Weekly Misadventures of Hank Hill Reacting to the Annoyances of Modern Day Life."" I agree about this, but I don't agree on how you insult other posters to make your point. KotH is very mediocre, very 'safe', very 'conformist', very bland, unexotic, uninteresting, unedgy, well, it's hard to even find enough words to describe just how bland and boring that show really is. I know the basic idea was pretty good and sound, Mike Judge trying to fix his fence and his weirdly talking neighbours ending up fixing it with proper tools and materials, but it just doesn't really work as a whole cartoon of 13 full seasons. Quite respectable that they were able to stretch something that thin for that long. To me, KotH isn't particularly exciting or entertaining - it seems to lack a 'spark'. It's like a car with no destination, running by itself with no one behind the wheel, accidentally happening to turn here or there due to the terrain, but never ending up anywhere interesting, until it just falls off a cliff at the end. I guess you -could- make the debate that KotH was somewhat 'grounded', or that it did have some 'subtle' humor (instead of saying something actually funny, saying something unfunny in a monotone voice in a situation that became ridiculous enough to warrant a different tone of voice can be considered 'subtle humor'), but in the end and in the long run, it's not funny enough, and despite the 'wacky adventures', it never really grabs you and tells you something important or takes you towards a message that's poignant. You could say what Kung-Fu Panda does really well (even though it's a movie), KotH doesn't even try to do. There's no message, it takes no stance, it goes nowhere, and we never even discuss whether propane pollutes or not, or whether alternative ways of heating things could actually be more environmentally friendly. You actually perfectly point out why this show doesn't work - it REMINDS you of better shows, that did similar things better. I WOULD rather watch 'That '70s Show', 'Married With Children' or Mike Judge's best work. Heck, even the best episodes of King of the Hill are more pleasant to watch than this. Why is it that when a show swims in vulgarity and low-brow cesspool of stupidity and filth, people are so quick to raise to defend it, but then they never have actual arguments, so they have to insult the poster, who did nothing more than give fair criticism towards a below-mediocre cartoon that mimics other shows so much that you wish you were watching those other shows instead..? Let's just start being honest with things and call things what they are. So far, this show has not impressed me, and it has made me want to watch so many other shows instead. Heck, even the UK 'The Office' is more entertaining and interesting than this one. At least they tried doing something new back in the day.. So this show seems to be like King of the Hill in the sense that Mike Judge didn't seem to have a particularly poignant reason or a deep message for creating that particular cartoon - he just wanted to try animation. Bill Burr, I guess, had a bit of a reason for voicing this angry dad, because he could channel his own father. However, so far, EVERY time he has done it on stage, he has been amazingly funny, but any second so far on this show, he has only been pretty 'meh', quite boring, and not funny at all. I guess 'talking about your father' is different than 'trying to act like your father' - I don't know, but this show just doesn't really work. There's the additional problem of 'comparing' - there HAVE already been pretty good shows doing pretty much anything and everything imaginable for a cartoon show, whether it's the story, actions, jokes, surprises, structural stuff and so on. Is there anything this show can do to really keep you interested, when you feel like you have seen it all already, because you have watched The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, King of the Hill and the list goes on...? I mean, what can this show offer that those shows haven't already? It's like playing a game on Atari ST ... you can like the game, it can be pretty good, but you just KNOW there's a version of that game that looks, plays and sounds better, plus has better atmosphere to it. Very often that other version is found on the Amiga side, sometimes in the of coin-up Arcade games, other times even the humble Commodore 64 or even Atari 800 (or '8-bit', as they call it). So watching this, you get a similar feeling, you start itching to watch something that did a similar thing, but much better - whether that's The Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy or something else is up to you, but it's easy to get that uneasy feeling while watching this, isn't it? Maybe we can do a test - imagine Frank was voiced by some unknown. Would you STILL watch this? Be honest. Yes, this show does remind me of 'King of the Hill' - another show where a famous and wealthy creator of other things decided a 'cartoon format' would work for him, but after watching pretty much every episode (besides some sports-themed ones, of which there are WAY too many), I can conclude the end result is lukewarm and lackluster at best, boring, predictable, long-winded and asinine (yes, I said it) at worst. KotH doesn't 'dare' enough - it does poke at 'serious topics', but then shies away from really making a statement or taking a stand, as if they don't want to ACTUALLY offend anyone, so everything always returns to the safe, wishy-washy, conformist 'non-stance' and next episode has forgotten all about it. No one ever grows or learns anything, etc. Now, I have only watched almost two episodes of this particular, weirdly-named show, and so far all I have seen are anachronisms, unsatisfied stories, horrible, jerk characters, modern speech patterns, wrong television sizes compared to what they are supposed to be and wrong kinds of typewriters (square-keyed, tight-keyboard, electric typewriter-looking ones did not exist in the 1970s), and Bill Burr ranting and raving a bit, but not to the point of being funny, and that's about it. It's like some people have to try 'everything', even though only one thing works for them. Bill Burr is a master of comedy craft when he's on stage. He can make you laugh even if you disagree with him or realize how misandristic and woman-worshipping he is (while supposedly saying some raw truths about them). However, he is also a helicopter pilot, actor, writer, podcaster and so on, and now a voice actor for (so far) an unfunny, repulsive cartoon that seems to serve no point. It doesn't really seem to work. What works on stage, just doesn't work for a cartoon. Just him voicing an angry dad is not enough, it's not particularly funny. Every time he is interviewed about this part, he reverts back to his material as well. "..why would you seek out a public forum to trash the work of someone in your life to a bunch of strangers who are likely here because they enjoyed it?" Why would you use such weird language, as in trying to make 'honest, critical forum post' sound like some kind of secret ops mission that some nutcase goes on after dark, hiding camouflaged in the bushes to SEEK someone frantically? Can't a forum post be just someone sitting comfortably on a chair, typing away into the night, while calmly sipping some iced tea and writing a thought that came to their head? Does it have to be SEEKING? Also, what kind of a friend can't handle honest opinions? I think it's commendable and encouraging to tell your friends what they might have done better when they work on something and the result is crappy. If you do something lousy, regardless of the amount of effort, wouldn't you want to KNOW it's lousy, instead of living in illusions? So why would YOU be so 'attackive' (opposite of 'defensive' doesn't really exist, does it? I mean, I could say 'offensive', but that has a completely different meaning now) over someone just writing their thoughts of the show? We can all wonder all kinds of things, and no TV cartoon is above criticism, even if you know the makers of it. Why should it be otherwise? We could wonder many things about this show, about almost anyone's comments here.. but the point of a board/forum like this is for people to talk and converse about these movies, TV shows and even cartoons. Why would you wonder about why someone would come to a forum to 'trash' (quite opinionated and 'attackive' language from someone that claims to not attack, and for trying to shame someone on being 'defensive') a show, when they simply use the board for its intended purpose? "If you knew (truncated), then you would have (snip) adored" I added proper punctuation and removed some irrelevant things to emphasize what you said. So knowledge = adoration? If you knew Bill Burr, you would have ADORED grotesqueness and the clich├ęs of the show? I wish I could summon Mr. Spock here to tell how much logic your claim has. You can be a fan of someone, but you don't have to lose all logic while trying to defend a show they are a voice actor in. Bill can be funny and you can know his 'persona' (whatever that means in this context) without automatically adoring a cartoon that he just happens to be one of the voice actors of. I mean, if you find some Bill's joke funny, does that translate to ADORING this cartoon showing a man being decapitated by a propeller? How does that work? That's the problem with fandom, when push comes to shove, logic flies out the window and you get the craziest statements that make no sense whatsoever. Even a blind chicken is correct sometimes, it seems. Yeh, that was a really idiotic bad parenting choice, but Hank has never been very intelligent or knowledgeable - he just seems to be, because he's surrounded by idiots. The norm back in the, I don't know, 1950s maybe(?), was that if your kid smokes a cigarette, instead of withholding the 'enticing forbidden substance' from the kid, you FORCE them to indulge in it until they feel sick. This sounds very solid, psychologically speaking, you make the kid HATE the thing he thought was so cool and exciting, so it'll be a while until they try it again, if ever. Basically using trauma as a deterrent. However, the amounts are all out of whack in this episode. It should've been something like ten cigarettes (or even a whole pack), and even that would be ridiculous. It could've been excused in the 1950s, when the dangers of cigarettes and all the addictive and poisonous chemicals in them weren't widely understood or known about. Hank's decision couldn't be more ignorance-based if it tried. Not only will that many cigarettes seriously harm Bobby's health (they're dangerous even for adults, but especially people younger than 18 years old), without giving the body time to recuperate - it could cause PERMANENT damage very easily - but even if Bobby escapes the health risks, he will most likely develop a CRAVING that's going to be very difficult to escape as well. Just make him smoke like four or five cigs in a row (and not even fully), and be done with it. Then again, bad parenting, bad dog handlership (two of the big burning problems ignorance has unleashed upon this wretched world) and other bad things run rampant in this pretty dull show, so that's realistic. Hank has broken so many laws in this show, I even wonder why anyone would wonder about any of it. Kicking 'a55' is unlawful, because it's trampling someone else's rights. You can't just go on attacking people according to law or even the legal system. Then there's the whole 'scalper tickets' thing when Hank is excited that Bobby is interested in American Football or something. How many laws does he break there, including 'stealing' a luxury box or whatever it's called..? Hank gladly does not only the wrong thing, but the unlawful, let alone illegal thing, if it serves him, while pretending to be a law-abiding individual. Hypocrisy at its finest.. Hank has no spine, while pretending to have one, and yet judges others for breaking the law. View all replies >