Does Not Illustrate: Darker And Edgier

So showing that the series was light and fluffy, but now this trope, is somehow worse...

I know you don't like multi-part pictures, but the logic you're using is just faulty.

If it doesn't make sense to you, it must not make sense at all? :P

"Adding a panel could not possibly make it worse" is only true if A) that would in fact show "the series was light and fluffy", B) that is the only thing adding a panel would do, and C) the image doesn't show that already.

edited 4th Jun '12 4:16:47 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Why would it need to do anything else? The point of Darker and Edgier includes that it was not as dark and edgy before, and that it what a "before" panel would logically show.

You don't see a problem with redundancy or clutter.

1. Redundant assumes the information is there on the current picture, and as others have noted, it's not.

2. Clutter is how it's presented and made to work with the current frame.

Yes, I am assuming that. I think it already says that, and saying it again would be redundant. It is useless to argue about whether I think that.

1. So if others see it but you don't, it's objectively not there; and if others don't see it but you do, it's just a difference of perception. Gotcha.
2. Present something then. Always open to improvements.

edited 4th Jun '12 3:08:52 PM by rodneyAnonymous

If you're claiming info about the previous form is present in the picture, objectively, then show it. Don't just claim we're just acting like it's not there. Tell us what is supposed to be there.

There are several (many?) replies from people who seem to think the current is fine. Missed the part where I made any claims about how anyone ("we" is just two, DQZ and HFM, btw) is acting.

edited 4th Jun '12 3:31:30 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Okay, if you didn't, then what did those who did claim it's there have to back it up?

Every single one of them says "it's fine because <reason>", not "it's fine" period.

Trying to turn this into an argument about what is Right and Wrong is futile. You can think it's not okay, that's cool. But the "not okay"s are considerably outnumbered by the "okay"s. Suggest something better.

v Those are all reasons. Suggest something better.

edited 4th Jun '12 4:12:30 PM by rodneyAnonymous

No, most don't. I'll post the text.

Post #5 "Looking at the image, it is patently obvious that the Smurfs were originally bright and cheery" — Not really pointing out details.

Post #9 "I like the current as it shows a Smurf (a kid's cartoon character) smoking a cigarette and another Smurf giving an unnecessary Panty Shot thus showing the adolescent nature of the 'edginess'" — Relies on knowing that it's a kid's cartoon character to make the argument.

Post #14 "Current image is hilarious, and potential users who have never heard of The Smurfs can always click the link." — We can't tell people on this site to look up info to get the full context of a picture, when they just want to see how a trope works.

Post #15 "I've never seen Smurfs or whatever its name is, but after exactly one click I could see a poster for the normal show." — Not everyone is going to make that click, especially with so many other links on a page they would rather see.

Post #17 "Anyway, even if you are not familiar with the Smurfs, the "Smurfs Hardcore" line itself is pretty indicative of the change..." — This is the first one that actually brought up the content of the image by itself. Not the best line, but it's something.

I think the design in the smurfy one clearly looks like something derived from something less edgy and more kid-friendly than what it presents here. The most obvious detail is the bright and cheery colours. Less obvious is that the picture wants to look as badass as possible.

Also, Smurf is pretty much an inherently silly word, so using it in an original production would just be, well, silly.

I would not object to having a comparison with #21 and an image like DQZ suggested in #24. However, that would run into "is it the same episode" problems, which the current avoids.

I would not object to having this poster beside a normal poster, showing different series and different tones. However, that could run into sizing and duplicate image issues.

The current is alright — as I said in #19, A good thing about the current image alone is the "Butterfield Studios" bit at the bottom. The childish font and company name help show that Smurfs was not originally/is not always like this.

Im Honestly fine with the current pic. None of the multi part replacements add anything beyond the clutter of an unnecessary multi part picture.

Plus the fact it has "Hardcore" under the title kinda implies normal Smurfs aren't like this, and this is darker and edgier.

As does the line "They are back with a whole new attitude"

Heck with those two lines, the image spells it out more plainly than a two part picture would.

edited 5th Jun '12 12:13:58 AM by Ghilz

Can't use the UNICEF picture. It's on Sugar Apocalypse, where it's dead-on.

edited 5th Jun '12 12:43:15 AM by Feather7603

Horrible pun is horrible, but you're right.

Per staff discussion, this is gonna be closed for not having enough of a valid argument against the pic, and the argument that is happening is circular and pointless.