Follow TV Tropes
From what I've seen from skimming some of the other reviews, people either like Mr. Enter, or they don't. Am I going to say he's perfect? No, of course not. No critic is ever going to have a 100 percent approval rating. Even I don't agree with all of his opinions, but I understand that's okay.
One thing I do have for Mr. Enter, without a doubt, is a lot of respect. From what he's told about his life, it hasn't been easy. Nobody deserves to have to deal with uncaring parents or pepper spray-wielding bullies; especially when you add the struggles of being on the Autism spectrum into that. Despite that, Mr. Enter has survived his hardships, and is trying his darndest to make a difference in his own way.
So what if he tend to Accentuate the Negative a lot? The show is called "Animated Atrocities" for a reason; it's to point out just what makes a bad cartoon so bad. Plus, he has things like "Admirable Animations" to balance all that out, so you can't say he's negative all the time.
One other thing I've also noticed about Mr. Enter that seems to separate him from some Internet critics is that he's actually willing to admit that he's made mistakes. Heck, he's even admitted that his personally attacking writers for making "bad" cartoon episodes was uncalled for, and he's trying to fix that.
Let's face it: there are some of us out there who may look into something like an episode of SpongeBob, and people are going to say that we're being too nit-picky. I've had that said to me plenty of times, and I'm sure Mr. Enter has heard it before too. But I truly believe that he does it for the same reason I do it: because reviewers like us care about what our children are being shown, and how potentially damaging something like "Seahorse Seashell Party" can be. Mr. Enter might not always get approval from everybody, but I can safely say that he will always get it from me.
The thing is, Animated Atrocities is more about the writing than anything else. I swear, I can\'t remember the last time I\'ve ever heard him talk about any of the technical stuff. Not to mention that he does have the basic flaws of the average online reviewer. Furthermore, didn\'t he once make a joke that made it sound like he compared Nick to child abusers? It does sound hypocritical from someone that claims to have an abusive childhood and is the source of why he hates many child abuse portions of certain cartoons.
Yes, it\'s nice to see reasonable reviews around here. It seems to me that most of the people who hate on him haven\'t watched his more recent episodes, where he doesn\'t talk about MLP as much as people claim, is more through in his criticisms, is a bit more funny, and doesn\'t go out of his way to attack writers. And I never got why the editing was such a problem, it never bothered me, and just seemed like a reason to complain. For what Yuma said above, he does look at technical things like animation a lot, and I have no idea what they\'re talking about.
Example shonengirl? I've seen a number of his reviews and I've yet to see him once bring up technical points.
I don't know; his reviews of Legends of Chamberlain Heights, Newborn Cuties, 70s cartoons, Kung Fu Dino Posse... I can go on.
You have any specific quotes then shonengirl? Oh, and \"the animation was good,\" and such don\'t count. He can give more than just a line with the length his videos are at.
Do I really have to go back and write every example word for word? He went on a minor rant about how the bad animation in Kung-Fu Dino Posse doesn\'t suit an action show. He also talked about how Chamberlain Heights\' animation looks worse than Paddy the Pelican, the first cartoon ever made for TV, and the first cartoon ever made. He kept ranting about how eye-bleeding Problem Solverz was in its review; the visual presentation is the only thing I remember him talking about in that review aside from how much of a Jerkass Alfe is. One of his biggest issues with 70s shows is their animation, or lack thereof. What, do you expect him to go at length about something that the audience can see with their own eyes? Please watch the actual videos, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
That Chamberlain Heights one is actually detrimental to your argument, shonengirl. I mean, besides the fact that he clearly has no idea of adult animation history, he really goes on to nitpick, going on a rant about how the lines aren\'t properly filled. He misses the point that it\'s not supposed to look like art or even be a technically sound show. That\'s the thing about adult animation, a great majority of it is technically terrible. It\'s to the point where some believe that making the show(s) animated were an afterthought because of how writing-focused the shows are. He also falsely claims that every adult cartoon show tries to be Family Guy or South Park, in that same video, and ignores many successful adult cartoons including, but not limited to, The Venture Bros., Mike Tyson Mysteries, Archer, and Bob\'s Burgers, and this is in that same review.
Leave a Comment:
Community Showcase More