So Bad It's Horrible Cleanup

I've brought that up before, but I kind of think Horrible.Software didn't need to end up in the Permanent Red Link Club since it wasn't nearly as problematic as the fanfic pages.

Apparently it was deleted partially because Idiot Programming fills the niche it was meant to fill, but I disagree with that claim because Idiot Programming is about how a piece of software is programmed, which often leads to the software itself being bad, but software can be bad without being poorly programmed. To paraphrase something said in Idiot Programming's TRS thread from a few years ago (which led to the launch of Idiot Design, at least partially because Idiot Programming was being misused to refer to hardware in addition to software), Microsoft Bob does exactly what it was programmed to do; it's just that what it was programmed to do is stupid.

As for whether we should migrate software examples to either Idiot Programming or Idiot Design (depending on whether it's bad due to how it's programmed or whether the concept itself is bad), I don't currently have a strong opinion on that either way at the moment.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 26th 2021 at 10:40:24 AM

Out of the red linked subpages (I looked at them with the Wayback Machine for reference), I feel only the Fanfic pages, the voice acting page (I believe I was the one who reported that bloated natter-fest), the Let's Play page (I believe this one is still around though), and the King Of Hate page deserved it. The rest (including the Web Original page) were relatively tame in comparison to those (in fact they weren't that different from the other pages at the time).

As for the Horrible Documentaries, I'd say get rid of most of them. If the target audience likes something, then it's probably not Horrible (especially if nobody's getting hurt). Enter the Anime can definitely stay (I'm an anime fan myself by the way) because it fits the criteria (mainly the objective low quality and large hatedom) . Doesn't help that some of them probably fall under propaganda ...

Edited by Idisagree on Apr 26th 2021 at 11:14:06 AM

Horrible.Lets Play was recently cut, so it's not still around. Not PRLC yet though — I don't think it's quite necessary.

Edited by mightymewtron on Apr 26th 2021 at 2:13:22 PM

Honestly, bringing back Horrible.Web Original would just cause the same problems we had with Horrible.Lets Play, namely the low bar of entry and confusion over what qualifies.

Also, continuing the other discussion above, why do we have a "Software" folder in Horrible.Other if Horrible.Software is PRLC'd?

The reason on the PRLC page is "Redundant, given Idiot Programming. Few examples even qualified."

As others have said, there's more to bad software than just programming.

Most likely it was just a complaining magnet; if we keep an eye on the software examples they shouldn't get out of hand.

I think I found a new horrible entry, this one being called Looney Tunes Cartoons.

I wrote what it should look like on the page.

• While Looney Tunes is high art, the same cannot be said about it's successor, Looney Tunes Cartoons. The gags are pretty uninspired. The removal of guns is one thing, (cue tweet) but the other gags are boring. Most of them fall under the same pitbulls of the post-shutdown shorts. The same gags over and over with little innovation. You’re going to be seeing the same dynamite and falling gags a lot. And it feels like there is too much dialogue for its own good. A good example is in Buzzard School in the part where Beaky is diveboming towards the log. Bugs does not need to talk that whole time. He could talk when he finds the can, but the joke would work better if Bugs walked in, silently, and Beaky suddenly pops into the log, with Bugs opening the can. Timing could be improved there too. If Bugs walked in and found Beaky already there, the joke would work better. And that’s just one example. Bugs Bunny suffers the most for me. One problem is something that actually happened in the late 50s. Bugs has been made to be so heroic and so justifiable, that he becomes a boring character. Instead of him being one step forward over his enemies, it just ends up feeling like his enemies are always one step back. Yosemite Sam has once again become a laughable foe for Bugs, and plus, how will he be a cowboy without GUNS?! Obviously writers have pretty much given up on Elmer Fudd, and it’s been that way since the 50s. Elmer is just so weak and dumb, that it’s borderline obnoxious. The loss of the gun doesn’t exactly help here. Who hunts with a scythe? Unpopular opinion here, but Bob Clampett Bugs is one of the best interpretations of Bugs. That Bugs was closer to the characterization that we saw in Tex Avery’s A Wild Hare, and it really shines. Bugs is meant to be a trickster, and this Bugs doesn’t feel like a trickster. Just a prop in his own world. Porky Pig and Daffy Duck are probably the other most affected characters. I was never too much of a fan of Clampett Daffy. Heck, one main problem I have with this show is that it tries to be like Clampett, but doesn’t have the animation or the imagination to do so. The best example I have to demonstrate the characterization of the two is Overdue Duck. In it, Daffy makes noise in a library while Porky is trying to keep it quiet. The thing about Porky and Daffy is that they are supposed to compliment each other. Porky may be a victim of Daffy’s shenanigans, or Daffy may be Porky’s sidekick. But they need to have the personalities to clash off of each other. If you want that clash, Porky should be treated like his late 30s characterization: a happy soul who, by no means of his own, is thrown into a world of crazy characters. That clashes well with the Clampett Daffy. And Clampett Daffy is supposed to have at least some sort of angry streak. That is something that makes him very enjoyable. But with this diluted Clampett Daffy, he barely has one, and it’s usually not with his interactions with Porky. But I think Diluted Clampett Daffy could work if Porky was given an angry streak. That was something done really well with Porky in shorts like Baby Bottleneck and Kitty Kornered. An angry streak a la Gabby Goat not only makes Porky and Daffy a stronger pairing, but also Porky as a character gets stronger. Porky hasn’t really had any solo shorts. And yes, I know LT directors complained about Porky being a less interesting character than others, but I think with an angry streak combined with his late 30s characterization, Porky could really shine as a solo character. Daffy on his own is just awful. Just mindless, droning, and too off-the-wall to be funny (The comedic timing is all off.) Sylvester and Tweety are just boring. The duo hasn’t really been good since the mid-50s. Plus, a Clampett-esque take on them just doesn’t work. Freleng’s sense of comedic and musical timing is what really made the shorts good. Bitch about reused plots and gags all you want, but most of the Sylvester and Tweety shorts are still good. Clampett-style (or rather, diluted Clampett-style) humor doesn’t really work with these characters. To me, one of the best things about the duo was pairing a Clampett-turned-Freleng canary with a Freleng cat. The differing styles of humor blend together to make something that was really good. The thing about Freleng’s style of humor, is that it’s “less is more”. You don’t need constant exaggerated voices or poses, but if you have the right timing, any gag can be funny. This was something that was really shown in S&T. When S&T are both Clampett-like, the balance is broken. It just becomes unfunny, stale, and too off the wall to land the joke. Plus, without animation on par with Art Davis or Gerry Chiniquy, S&T aren’t getting close to funny. Also vore. The others are insignificant enough that you don’t actually care about them. They just aren’t funny. I’m still not too much of a fan of the Clampett-esque redesigns. Plus, Rocky and Mugsy without guns just feels wrong. The music is fine, but I have some issues with it. The first is a problem I’ve had with most WBA shows since the mid 2000s. They all feel so samey with their soundtracks. Maybe it’s just me. Also, the Carl Stalling feel is lost here. The Stalling feel was music that could both accompany and enhance the gags. Also, one major part was the widesperead use of short cues from the WB music library. And yeah, I know they haven’t been able to do that since the dip$h1t Time Warner sold off the music division to offload debt (it didn’t work), but they managed to use Powerhouse, which is still under copyright. So maybe there is hope. The animation is the WORST part of the series. Most of it is tweened garbagio. It doesn’t flow naturally, it always tries to settle in but it ends up looking gross. The linework is so thin that at times, it looks like the characters have no lines. The animation is outsourced to multiple studios. And outsourcing just does not work with a series of shorts. It worked well for TLTS (great show btw) because that was its own thing that was pulled off amazingly well, despite everyone’s suspicions. But when you’re going for something like the originals, outsourcing will not cut it. Even the parts that aren’t tweened still don’t feel natural (by LT standards) at all. The animation has no personal variation to it at all. With the originals, you could tell the difference between a Rod Scribner and Robert Mc Kimson shot, or a Gerry Chiniquy to a Virgil Ross shot. But with these new ones, everything just feels so samey and robotic-like. It’s not fluid, it doesn’t live up to the originals at all, it’s gross, and it’s comparable to the Seven-Arts shorts. The animation is overly smooth, and does not feel like it has any sort of wackiness to it. It just feels so floaty. The character models themselves are pretty well constructed (although I wish they used the Mc Kimson Bugs model, which is the definitive model), but the animation doesn’t do them justice. For some reason, I feel like I end up agreeing with Ferris Wheelhouse’s Wet Cement review. Obviously I still think he is a spineless pus$y who has sh1t opinions and does sh1t research, but y’know. It really starts to feel like the new animators can’t draw. I read an interview with Pete Browngardt, where he said they had to remind the overseas animators to animate the characters with 3D shapes and like they were in a 3D environment. That is not something you should be saying to Looney Tunes animators. I wish they could have exclusively used domestic animators, but that probably couldn’t happen in a million years. It would be too expensive. The So Cal clique has astronomical rates for animators. Still, having the directors, writers and other artists in the same environment would be a tremendous help to these shorts. It would make the gags pop out and the animation not complete dog$h1t. And I’m not saying outsourcing is inherently bad. But it needs to be used with caution. Tweening is just not somethin that should be used, and the animation needs to have a more laid-back, but still dynamic feel, with some actual weight to the characters. LTC is not very good at all. It is a botch-job. No doubt (okay maybe some doubt) that the new crew are talented, but this just does not work. The best of the originals were made in a very specific environment. And WB cheaping out by outsourcing the series makes a crucial element of the environment diluted. Also, wtf was with that rollout? 10 eps in May, 1 special in December, and 10 more in January which you f’d the release of really hard? It’s like they want these to fail. Also, HBO Max would have been good, but the price tag. $14.99? For a catalog that barely has anything in 4K HDR? For an app that is still using the HBO Go tech from 2010? For a service that outsources toon restoration work, which led to Tex Avery Vol.2 to be a complete mess full of DVNR and ugly colors (and photoshop titles)? Not to mention the censorship. And if these shorts do fail after they don’t finish releasing until, like, 2025, well, be prepared for another few decades of Tom and Jerry and Scooby-Doo. AGAIN. LTC was a promising revival of LT, but the subpar animation and neutered gags bring it down severely. It ends up joining the ranks with the Larry Doyle shorts of being a mediocre revival attempt, and I am very disappointed with these shorts.

Well, for one, the entry is a giant wall of text, has some First-Person Writing and a lot of natter, and I would like to see some citations for if the shorts are considered Horrible by others, not just by you.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Apr 30th 2021 at 5:37:02 AM

Yeah, I hate to TL;DR examples, but... Too Long; Didn't Read. Mostly because that much text makes my eyes bleed.

Holy wall-of-text, Batman.

In all seriousness, LTC wouldn't qualify. It's been acclaimed from both fans and critics for the most part.

As everyone else has said: good lord, that’s a serious Wall of Text. And that’s not mentioning the First-Person Writing and tons of personal rambling.

Furthermore, the shorts have been very well-received; it has 88% from critics and 90% from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes. No way in hell does it quality as SBIH. The page isn’t a dumping ground for your personal opinions.

Edited by jandn2014 on Apr 30th 2021 at 5:58:48 AM

Yeeeeah, if anything, they're probably the best received attempts at reviving Looney Tunes since the start of the century (and The Looney Tunes Show and Wabbit weren't even that badly received either), as jandn stated just above me . This is an insta-cut IMO.

And even if it did qualify for the page, wow, that is waaaaay too wordy and natter-y.

Edited by kablammin45 on Apr 30th 2021 at 5:48:46 AM

And this is the second time you've tried to slam your own opinions through.

In addition to all of the above, the entry uses insults directed at the creators (and censors them with random letters, numbers, and symbols), and uses acronyms such as "wtf". This is a hate-fuelled review disguised as a SBIH entry.

It IS the same user who tried to add Ralph Breaks the Internet and Toy Story 4 to the animated films section.

I went ahead and bumped the ATT thread with a link to here.

They're already suspended, btw... So this is an attempt to get us to add their example for them.

Why do you censor "shit" and "pussy" like that? We don't do that here. If you must censor curse words, do it the standard way, i.e. "s**t," and only if the work itself is censoring words.

Also, I agree with what everybody else said. It's basically a review and it's a very whiny one. It wouldn't even pass as a standard review, and the copious first person writing, irrelevant material (like whining about overseas animators or a streaming service's price tag), and personal attacks make it a very bad entry. And we already told you that critically acclaimed works do not count.

I will happily add that Looney Tunes Cartoons is one of my most favorite shows of all time, and both people I've met in person and my friends on Twitter love it too. One of the only good reboots in my eyes alongside Ducktales and Animaniacs. Absolutely not Horrible by any stretch of the imagination.

I try to not use informal language, but... wow. Talk about a hate-boner. Everyone else has already explained what’s wrong with it, so I don’t feel like I need to elaborate further.

I'm assuming that the Looney Tunes Cartoons entry was supposed to say "pitfalls" instead of "pitbulls", and that the latter was an autocorrect error.

But as was previously said, it's a Wall of Text that doesn't qualify.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 30th 2021 at 11:01:37 AM

That example just seems like prime copypasta material right there.

Edited by PlasmaPower on Apr 30th 2021 at 3:36:12 PM

Don't devolve into popcorn posting, guys. Though this is still attempted meatpuppetry and the mods will hopefully take a look at it.

Should we holler the post, or do you think the ATT bump is sufficient?

ATT is fine, as long as people don't comment on the post enough that a mod prefers to thump it.

My only concern is that a lot of ATT posts go ignored if the conversation gets too long or if the thread is an older one.

Same, which is why a new ATT query would probably be better than bumping an old one.