Why does he feel the need to give writers "running scores"? Is he gonna do anything with them by the end of the season? .... are the writers his personal friends?
He believes that keeping a running score of each of the writers reflect their overall quality.
The answer to both the above questions is that Mr. Enter considers the writers mostly responsible for whether or not an animated episode or movie succeeds. This is not an unreasonable way to approach animated episodes, as writers often get lost in discussing creators or producers (Like so many people made a huge fuss about Lauren Faust leaving MLP where a comparatively fewer fans cared about M. A. Larson leaving (albeit, temporarily) despite the latter contributing far more to the show).
That, and he's a freelance writer himself.
One problem fellas, that is an unreasonable approach. The fact is that both directors and producers have more creative control than writers, and above them are executives.
Because an episode of TV, or a movie, or a book can only be as good as the writers make them, so including the writers in the score is fair game.
Why does Mr. Enter think that Squidward reading Spongebob's diary in front of the Krusty Krab make him irredeemable? That...honestly is one of the LEAST offensive things I seen in bad Spongebob episodes, and even than, it was just one episode of Squidward being a dick.
It's not. What Mr. enter thinks is irredeemable is the fact that Squidward not only never shows remorse but at the end, actually says that the torture he suffers is worth it. The fact that Squidward could deal with losing his house, his dignity, and even his friendships, if it means that Spongebob gets to suffer.
So, Mr. Enter hates the Spongebob episode Demolition Doofus for including a semi-main character trying to kill someone in what is essentially a kid's show...but what about Courage the Cowardly Dog? You know, the cartoon where one of the more major villains was a zombie director who was pretty much stated to have made Snuff Films most of his life?! It's a good show mind you, I just don't understand how Mr. Enter thinks a kids show that has a character trying to kill one is wrong but yet at the same time ignore another kids show that features a serial killer who made snuff films.
It might have something to do with Consistency. Courage was designed to push the envelope in horror in kid's shows from the get go. Spongebob in contrast had to get to severe Seasonal Rot to get to what it is at the time "Demolition Doofus" was written. There's also the fact that the director zombie was clearly a villain, while Spongebob's cast may as well be Flanderized into Designated Heroes and Designated Villains at this point.
It really has something more to do with Flanderization. Yes, Mrs. Puff is annoyed of Spongebob's incorrigible behavior and inability to drive a boat, but intentionally trying to kill him was way out of character for her. It makes her just as bad (if not even worse than) as Mr. Krabs. Courage the Cowardly Dog, on the other hand, is a horror show that's pretty much expected for homicide. Keep in mind that the episode "Ball of Revenge" was on Mr. Enter's Animated Atrocities videos as well.
I think it's more about the fact that Mrs. Puff is meant to be a sympathetic character, whereas the zombie director was a villain.
The shows are entirely different in both setups and characters. Courage is set in a Crapsack World, where horror things rule the landscape and you're expecting terrible things to happen. Spongebob is a Slice of Life comedy that's meant for an entirely different audience that Courage. On top of that, it adds to the ongoing problem of the flanderization of the cast of characters. Courage never had that problem unless an episode was just bad.
Why is he asking for thousands of dollars on Patreon so he can review films that are several years old and can be rented for around $5-$15?
Many artists use Patreon to gain money for the work they do. Many use these funds to improve upon their work, like better programs, to use in the future. The support is what keeps them going.
It could be because he's trying to make a living off of these reviews.
1. You can't always rely on YouTube's ad system, especially post-2017 YouTube where they keep screwing shit up. 2. He has to deal with copyright claims, which can unjustly strip money away from his channel. 3. If he has an audience that will support him, why not let them?
Human beings need to eat. Most of us like not starving.
In Teen Titans Go episode, "Staring at the Future", why was Mr. Enter upset that Nightwing (future Robin) settles down with Batgirl instead of Starfire? I thought he didn't care much about romance/shipping. And in some incarnations Robin and Batgirl really did get together, anyhow.
Probably because Batgirl wasn't even in the original show.
Well, the main selling point of Teen Titans was the Will They or Won't They? tension about the romance of Robin and Starfire. By not having them together in the future, it's like saying "Welp, we know this pairing is popular and is the most beloved romance in a superhero cartoon, but who cares? We want to piss off the fans as much as possible!". I'm not a big shipper either, but I can see why that could be seen as a Take That!.
I'm not a RobStar fan. Nothing against (2003)Starfire, I just like RobRav more (blame season 4). In "Staring at the future", however, I did expect RobStar to be hitched, but I was neutral with the Robin/Batgirl thing. I can understand why RobStar fans were ticked off about it, but I asked, because I'm trying to understand, why non RobStar fans (or, non-shipping fans in general) were offended by this? Why is it a Take That! for them? Is it the principle?
Because it's a slap to original series fans more than it is a joke, but also because it's not a good joke. For one, it comes to early in the series and the only people who'd get it are people who'd seen the original series, especially since the Trouble in Tokyo movie confirmed their couple status after 5 seasons of Ship Tease.
But if Mr. Enter doesn't care about shipping, why would he care about the romance between Robin and Starfire? It'd probably just be easier to say that Mr. Enter's kind of a hypocrite and leave it at that.
In his Top 25 Most Disturbing Episodes in Kids Cartoons list, he stated that House Fancy type episodes where the episode was mostly okay with one disturbing moment coming out of nowhere did not count. However, in a later Tumblr post, he listed a few of those types of episodes and Teeth for Two was one of them, which also made it onto his Most Disturbing Episodes list. Wouldn't that mean Teeth for Two wouldn't qualify?
That particular moment was just so disturbing that it managed to qualify regardless. Though there are other things rather disturbing about the episode, such as Dog, clearly and selfishly not caring that his actions are causing Cat pain and refusing to do something as simple as brushing his teeth, or the part where Cat and Dog start brutally mutilating each other's teeth in increasingly cringe-worthy ways....
Why does he takes things not to be taken seriously, actually seriously? The episode "Town and Out" in PPG wasn't a serious episode, it was a silly one. And the Dexter's lab episode he reviewed, wasn't to be taken seriously as well. Probably the most hilarious instance is his speech at the end of "The card review", where he exaggerates Patrick saying something about being dumb, when it was just a harmless joke.
But that wasn't the writers intentions. It was a joke episode.
Three things: Mr. Enter believes in Death of the Author, so authorial intent doesn't count for much (he's even gone back and apologized for reviews where he drifted from this); he knows many of these episodes are supposed to be funny but doesn't think they are funny, nor does he think it's interesting or insightful to repeatedly say "X is not funny"; and he has stated he takes bad humor seriously because if it doesnt seem funny than it comes across as serious.
Because, and I think Pie Guy Rulz put it like this, it's character damaging. Even though Spongebob doesn't really have a flowing continuity from episode to episode, one episode can turn you off from a character if the character is written poorly, then admits that they know everything they do is stupid, but they don't care and, in fact, they make it worse by mixing it up to "keep you on your toes," as Patrick puts it. Patrick was never intended as that kind of character, but he ended up that way and it damaged Enter's view of him. On top of that, you can't stop Fridge Logic, intended or not.
Objectively, The Mysterious Mare-Do-Well received a bad score, so it's not like it's given a complete pass. It also had Rainbow Dash acting like an arrogant prick for a good chunk of the episode; there was probably a bit of catharsis involved in seeing her get knocked down a peg, even if the methods weren't ideal. In the case of Ponyville Confidential it might have to do with who's depicted as being in the wrong; Putting your Hoof Down had his favorite pony acting needlessly cruel to her own friends, and the blame is put on someone who was just doing his job. In Ponyville Confidential, not only did the CMC realize what they were doing early on and only kept going because Diamond Tiara blackmailed them, but in their last article they also called out the townsponies for enjoying the stories that weren't about themselves when they hated the ones that were, saying it was part of the reason they kept going. In the end, Diamond Tiara got her comeuppance and the CMC were forgiven.
Simple. The Mysterious Mare Do Well was so criticized by other reviewers, he came in with extremely low expectations for the episode, and the episode wasn't as terrible as the reviews made it out to be. It's not as if he liked it, he just said he didn't hate it. In the commentary for Putting Your Hoof Down, he said what truly bugs him is Rarity and Pinkie coming back so quickly after such a strong insult. As for Ponyville Confidential, no one was acting as a jerk without a reason. Gossip about someone = negative reaction from them. He also didn't consider it excessive.
It's possible he never noticed the contradiction.
In his video "Critical Advice: Dealing with Trolls" he states that no matter how much you dislike one of your videos or how much people troll on it, you should not delete the video. And yet he goes on to delete his Pet Sitter Pat, One Coarse Meal, and Stuck in the Wringer reviews and plans on taking down his It's a Wishful Life and Nobody Doesn't Like TJ reviews. Granted, he admits to doing so and he plans on making re-reviews of those episodes (if he hasn't already made them), so it's not like he's trying to hide the mistakes he made, but still it's confusing why he would go against his own strict rule.
Those three SpongeBob reviews were taken down by Viacom, not by Mr. Enter. Plus, he never said he would delete the videos, he just wants to re-review the episodes in question.
He said it himself that after he re-reviews those episodes he's going to take them down (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUWjBoiPBSk). In addition, when I click on those videos in his Atrocity playlists I don't get the copyright message, I get the private video message.
I know the first Pet Sitter Pat review got axed because he showed Casey Alexander's twitter, resulting in him getting harassed by those that saw it. Deleting it might not stop those already harassing him on it's own, but it'd at least keep the problem from getting worse, and would hopefully send the message that attacking writers isn't ok. IDK about the rest, though.
Until Growing Around becomes a real thing that has it's own TV Tropes page, I'm just gonna leave this here: How does reproduction work? And if it's a case of the kids in charge having children when they grow 'up' then are they raised by a baby? Or does everybody age backwards in this world, growing more immature and childish as time goes on, which could be akin to teens getting it on and having a child because of it?
He told Bubsy to not remind him of the new MLP because of... an egghead joke? I haven't watched too much of MLP recently, so can someone tell me if that was actually a thing in MLP? Beyond that, though, why would he reference something from about 15 years after Bubsy? I mean, I am sure Sonic called Dr. Eggman an egghead at some point. Wouldn't that have made more sense?
The main character of MLP FIM is a smart nerdy type who's frequently called "Egghead" by one of her friends known as Rainbow Dash. Hence why Mr. Enter referenced MLP when the word Egghead came up in Bubsy.
Also, in "Read It and Weep", Rainbow Dash doesn't want to show her adoration for Daring Do in fear of becoming an "egghead".
In his Ren Seeks Help review, he said that heinous 11 minute episode > no plot 22 > heinous 22. That would explain why he considered "SpongeBob You're Fired" worse than "A Pal for Gary" and "One Coarse Meal" worse on his initial worst list from 2013. But then he decided "One Coarse Meal" was his most hated episode again, as with "Pet Sitter Pat", both of which are heinous 11s while "SpongeBob You're Fired" was a no plot 22 (and one of his journals also implied that he found "A Pal for Gary" worse again). That kinda defies the logic he implied before...
Those episodes are a special kind of heinous; let's call it "super heinous". An episode as godawful as One Coarse Meal goes way beyond the standard level of heinous, to the point where it'd be a sin to consider it entertaining in any form, even masochistically. Pet Sitter Pat and A Pal for Gary are also some of his least favorite episodes in the series, due to the sheer level of flanderization of the supposed protagonists of the show. He might have just been talking about the standard heinous 11s, like Squid's Visit, Restraining Spongebob, or even more major ones, like To Love a Patty..
Why do so many of his videos get flagged and deleted by YouTube while other critics (like Channel Awesome's alumni) are able to post their own videos unmolested?
That's an easy one: many other critics are more popular, meaning they gain more revenue from videos, which means they can afford better legal representation. The other critics aren't harassed any less by false copyright claims or misunderstandings about Fair Use, they just have lawyers that can help resolve the matters far quicker.
Actually, it more so has to do with YouTube's terrible copyright system. He's made videos before on this. The system automatically assigns blame to the uploaders, even when they're in the right, and there's no third party to arbitrate fairly on behalf of the uploaders. Many other uploaders, big and small, have to deal with the same things all the time.
One thing that always confuses me is why he takes some of the more...questionable moments of Family Guy seriously. Like when Peter tried to marry Chris, or the end of "Seahorse Seashell Party." They aren't intended to be taken seriously, they're meant to be a joke. That doesn't mean that they're funny by any means, because they aren't, but it still confuses me that he takes them so seriously.
See above. Basically, he takes bad humor so seriously because anything that isn't funny risks coming across as serious to the audience.
I guess that's a fair explanation, but I have my doubts that people would take those some of those scenes seriously. Maybe the SSP one, but definitely not the Peter/Chris marriage.
Here's an experiment. Watch the scene where Chris explains why he wants to go through with marrying Peter in "Fresh Heir" and then watch the scene in "Not All Dogs Go to Heaven" where Brian convinces Meg to become an atheist. What's the difference between these two scenes? They both have emotional scores, both include a dramatic zoom, and the performances between Seth MacFarlane and Seth Green aren't that dissimilar. The thing is, the ending of "Fresh Heir", an episode with a Spoof Aesop, plays out exactly the same as "Not All Dogs Go to Heaven", an episode with the "real" Aesop we're supposed to learn from. Think about it, if you weren't raised to believe that Parental Incest was a bad thing, would you think "Fresh Heir's" ending was meant to be ironic, especially if "Not All Dogs" Aesop was delivered in the same way?
Why do people like to claim that Mr. Enter thinks that cartoons need to have morals when he's stated at least twice that a cartoon doesn't need to have morals; just good execution?
Because he's gotten his undies in a bunch over a cartoon lacking a moral before. He also doesn't always act like he cares about the execution.
Because he doesn't seem to get the concept of SpoofAesops, LampshadeHangings, and other tools of comedy, even when they're done poorly, or he only does selectively (which wouldn't be surprising, considering his Asperger's). Look at the episode "Stuck in the Wringer" from Spongebob. Spongebob clearly says sarcastically that crying does solve problems, which no one would take even remotely seriously because of the sarcastic tone of his voice, but Enter still didn't get that it was a sarcastic message.
Pardon my language, but WTFAYTA? Spongebob wasn't being sarcastic at all during the "Spoof Aesop". It's not that hard to tell when Spongebob is being sarcastic (If he's actually ever been). This is one of the moments when he isn't. That's why he was mad at it, because it's a terrible Aesop (And no, it's not a Spoof Aesop, either. That would mean that Stuck in the Wringer is a joke episode). Even if nobody's going to fall for it, it's still there.
Mr. Enter has a fine grasp of sarcasm, Lampshade Hanging, and such. He knows damn well that the Stuck in the Wringer aesop was meant to be a joke, his issue with it is that, while kids are not necessarily stupid, they DO still have a lot to learn, and one's sense of sarcasm is something that develops with time. As Mr. Enter himself has said, it's why kids will say something like "nice hair. NOT!" or similar. Even smarter kids can get confused about one's tone of voice, and many kids' shows have a character address the audience directly to spell out morals, not to mention the above poster's point that it's not always easy to tell when Spongebob is being sarcastic. If even an adult can find it hard to tell whether Spongebob is being sarcastic, kids, especially very young kids, will also find it hard to tell and might actually take it seriously. As for Lampshade Hanging, he only hates it when it's used as an excuse or justification. He appreciates it when it's done well, but Animated Atrocities is about times when it's not done well.
For that matter, wouldn't it be kind of pointless to have an avatar who is hidden in shadows if one has shown up on camera on numerous occasions?
For one, it has since reappeared. Secondly, there are several reasons. To start, other Youtubers, like Joshscorcher, Silver Quill, and others, use animated avatars, usually related to what they generally analyze, despite showing up on camera many times. It gives them all their own unique look and feel when reviewing, and in the case of collabs and the like, opens up potential for cartoonish shenanigans and exaggerated expressions. Mr. Enter's avatar fits his name, looks seriously cool, and lets him do jokes like his Heat Ray in Norm of the North 2 better. Remember how he once threatened to stab a movie with a fork for messing with his beard? The new avatar can make that funnier by actually showing him doing that. Of course, this all ignores that he has had several moments where he calls himself ugly, so ultimately it might just be easier/more comfortable for him. Plus, it spares us the sights of bad animation and grossout moments when we only see the avatar, or he can use the avatar to cover particular spots for view comfort, like covering Spongebob's splinter when footage of it was used in a more recent review.
Is it just me or is Mr. Enter weirdly influential on TV Tropes? I mean, how many Broken Aesop entries and Dethroning Moment entries read like a portion of his Animated Atrocities?
IIRC it was said somewhere that he sometimes combs the Dethroning Moment pages for Animated Atrocity ideas, or he at least used to, so it's kinda the other way around.
Maybe because a lot of people think alike when describing terrible things?
The answer is yes. Yes, Mr. Enter is indeed extremely influential on TV Tropes. A lot of folks on this site are fans of Mr. Enter, so as much as they try to deny it, he is indeed very influential. It's not just a TV Tropes thing, though - if you look on other sites like DeviantArt and YouTube, you'll find that he's pretty influential on there too. To be fair, the Nostalgia Critic also seems to be pretty influential on here, but still...
Here's my question. Why does he seem to think Phineas and Ferb premiered later than it did and why does he think that there were absolutely no good cartoons during the mid to late 2000s? I mean, I understand memories and years blurring in the mind after a while, but Phineas and Ferb premiered in 2007, not 2010. On top of that, it's not like there weren't any other great shows on at the time. Nick still had Avatar,Fairly OddParents, and I thought Penguins of Madagascar was pretty entertaining, Disney Channel had The Replacements, which was a pretty fun show, and Cartoon Network had Ben 10: Alien Force (which, yes, is a very good show for its first 2 seasons), Chowder, Batman Brave and the Bold, and Star Wars: The Clone Wars. It's either that he didn't do any research, or he prefers to blanket the entirety of the last few years of the 2000s decade as completely bad in terms of TV animation, which they weren't. I remember, I was there and watching.
A: When did he say that the show premiered in 2010? B: The bad cartoons are probably the majority, so you can't really gloss over them.
In his review of Friendship is Witchcraft, his reaction to the line "it's not creepy" in a song about Twilight being in love with her (in the parody series' universe) adopted brother is to angrily proclaim, "Yes it IS!" The song seems made to make fun of folks who try to justify incestuous ships, but he seems to think the creators genuinely agree with the sentiment. Which one is correct?
What is the best way to ask him about a show/suggest he do a show?