So, let's talk.

[Swoop]

Newgrounds appears to be having quite the time.

[f0d]

i remember when kirbopher was a harmless lil faggot animating 50 sprite movies, i had no idea he was also responsible for bullshit like brawl taunts

i want to leave ng, i really do

i hope campnorth stays good i think ill join there

[adamant]

i want to leave ng, i really do

then just do it already

[MRat]

I do not want to leave NG at all, myself. I love NG. There are negative elements, as there are anywhere, that I abhor and love to mock, and there are plenty of positive elements to, which I simply love.


I don't think I've ever complained about NewGrounds itself, sure the review mods, sure the BBS, sure the shit that gets voted high for no decent reason. But at the end of the day, I don't care, because I can flaunt my own garbage all over the site too.

[Swoop]

I don't think I've ever complained about NewGrounds itself, sure the review mods, sure the BBS, sure the shit that gets voted high for no decent reason. But at the end of the day, I don't care, because I can flaunt my own garbage all over the site too.

Rather quite makes sense to me. Honestly, NewGrounds isn't that much different from places such as DeviantArt aside from it focusing mainly on animation. If anything I feel more sympathy for those who create games and score music for their complete underexposure. For all three of those things however, it seems to simply be a place to "put" them more than anything else - the reviewing and feedback is really just an extra feature.

[MRat]

big ol butts

Exactly. It's a real shame though, because a really well worked out review system that didn't just end up as a shout box for the uneducated would propel NG into a whole new realm, I think. If they just added a tiny shout-out thing on the side, and kept the review system exclusively for thought-out, formatted, properly written reviews, then they'd easily fix the problem, I think.


I like NG a whole lot more than DeviantArt/SheezyArt in some ways, I think. DeviantArt/SheezyArt has Art right in the title, and yet people are encouraged to post edits if sprites they didn't even make. Horrible pseudo-chibi mange by over-weight American 12 year olds get will get daily feature status. FanArt that is popular not for the art, but for the fans, is considered the be all and end all of greatest. It's just sad, and when you post a comment saying you dislike it, you get banned or even deleted.

NG however has a fairly lenient 'live and let live' administration system. All the daily features and awards are given based on user-scores, and plenty of God-Awful shit really does get blammed into oblivion. If there is one problem, I think it's that things like Sprite movies win awards and get money. The only thing about the site itself that I would change for sure is to make a rule barring anything that doesn't use original art and music from winning awards or prize money. I wouldn't make a rule against submitting them, because alot of that stuff is what makes NG accessible at all, but something that doesn't have a single drawing or piece of music that was made by an NG member does not deserve cash. I am talking to you, Alvin-Earthworm.

In the end though, it is Tom Fulp's site, and he can do whatever the fuck he wants with it.

[jebxz]

thats a little to long for me

[ZekeySpaceyLizard]

[Cambo]

big ol butts

Exactly. It's a real shame though, because a really well worked out review system that didn't just end up as a shout box for the uneducated would propel NG into a whole new realm, I think. If they just added a tiny shout-out thing on the side, and kept the review system exclusively for thought-out, formatted, properly written reviews, then they'd easily fix the problem, I think.


I like NG a whole lot more than DeviantArt/SheezyArt in some ways, I think. DeviantArt/SheezyArt has Art right in the title, and yet people are encouraged to post edits if sprites they didn't even make. Horrible pseudo-chibi mange by over-weight American 12 year olds get will get daily feature status. FanArt that is popular not for the art, but for the fans, is considered the be all and end all of greatest. It's just sad, and when you post a comment saying you dislike it, you get banned or even deleted.

NG however has a fairly lenient 'live and let live' administration system. All the daily features and awards are given based on user-scores, and plenty of God-Awful shit really does get blammed into oblivion. If there is one problem, I think it's that things like Sprite movies win awards and get money. The only thing about the site itself that I would change for sure is to make a rule barring anything that doesn't use original art and music from winning awards or prize money. I wouldn't make a rule against submitting them, because alot of that stuff is what makes NG accessible at all, but something that doesn't have a single drawing or piece of music that was made by an NG member does not deserve cash. I am talking to you, Alvin-Earthworm.

In the end though, it is Tom Fulp's site, and he can do whatever the fuck he wants with it.

don't you think if that happened, it would discourage people from submitting them in the first place? and a lot of artists wouldn't bother submitting anymore? and before you start celebrating, keep in mind plenty of people start off coming to NG for these accessible (even though possibly artistically shite) films. Many go on to discover other films and mature with the content, and many don't, but the fact is the site is built to rely on advertising money that needs heaps of visitors to maintain. Having less sprite films doesn't equal more visitors.

Also I don't get the big deal with sprite films. I don't watch them - I've seen about two I think - and I know heaps of peeps do, and enjoy them. I don't get how people can get upset about them not using their own drawings. Is it that big a deal? Films like Kung Pow and TV shows like Iron Chef overdub footage from other mediums. If they don't create the visuals but still reinterpret it with their own writing, does that make it less artistically valid?

I think the argument that sprite movies are stupid and shit is levelled more at the audience of sprite movies than the creators themselves. It's fine if you don't like a type of film, but noone's going to say that there's no audience for them. Heaps of people like them, and that's why I think this is veiled attack at them. And if people like Alvin-Earthworm make their own sprites anyway then I think the "original artwork" thing is kinda disingenuous.

Don't hate me.

[ZekeySpaceyLizard]

Also I don't get the big deal with sprite films. I don't watch them - I've seen about two I think - and I know heaps of peeps do, and enjoy them. I don't get how people can get upset about them not using their own drawings. Is it that big a deal? Films like Kung Pow and TV shows like Iron Chef overdub footage from other mediums. If they don't create the visuals but still reinterpret it with their own writing, does that make it less artistically valid?

[sQueef]

hehehehe hohoho fucken shit

mm talkin talkin talkin

[Philip K Dick]

is it just me or has squeef been high since like yesterday

[sQueef]

shut the fuck up asshole

lmafao wow

[Philip K Dick]

Masta HLG: hows that pot you bought
squ0f: nice.. wtf
squ0f: whats with the 20 questions
squ0f: u a cop????
Masta HLG: im ;like
Masta HLG: perpetually high
Masta HLG: i think
squ0f: for real son
Masta HLG: its why
squ0f: thats deep
Masta HLG: its why drugs have no effect on me
squ0f: oh man
squ0f: how what
squ0f: you thought i was high this whole time
squ0f: or
squ0f: what
Masta HLG: yeah youre acting like it
squ0f: oh
squ0f: damn
squ0f: shit
squ0f: i should probably
squ0f: not post
squ0f: for a while
squ0f: then
Masta HLG: why
squ0f: cuz i dont
squ0f: want to um
squ0f: act like im high or somethen
squ0f: fuckin kill joy god dam
squ0f: i was laughin hard till
squ0f: jus now
squ0f: lmao
Masta HLG: cause ur hi
squ0f:

[MRat]

I keep hearing about this audience stuff. Tailored to an audience, there's an audience for it. People say these things like it makes any sort of difference. The second you consider the audience instead of the story or work at hand is the second you've failed as an artist.

The point of these things is to tell a story, whether or not it be narrative. Every piece of art tells a story conveyed through emotional representation. That is a basic and fundamental fact. The problem, a good story is a personal story. Something that comes from you and is told only through your own understand of what needs to be said. If do things like "tailor" then you are no longer working for the sake of the story, you are working for the sake of appeasement, and are no longer creating art, but instead a product.

So in short, yes, yes a sprite movie IS without merit because it is made the way it is to attract viewers through easily recognized imagery and ideas. Cambo, you yourself have admitted to not watching sprite movies so I can understand how you've missed a number of details. I happen to watch everything that wins awards or gets featured, and pretty much everything else that I have time to watch, because I want to find quality everywhere. Here is something about sprite movies, and I know many of these things myself because I tried my hand at a couple sprite movies in the first weeks I had Flash; they are easily made and mark a lack of effort on the part of the author, things like Madness or what have you are as simplistic and require all the exact same animating abilities in the same way and the drawings can be done by anyone. Combine those and what is the logical deduction? The author does not care, and therefor the piece is worthless.

It is not about whether people enjoy the work. There are people who enjoy forcing batteries into their penis through their urethra. It's about the fact that a sprite movie is not someone's own work. The story isn't even theirs, because it's written with characters who were not created by them. Could you imagine is a Legend of Zelda fan-fiction was a best-selling book on the New York Times tables? Could you imagine if it beat the latest Stephanie Meyers or Stephen King endeavor? Both King and Meyers are very commercial authors who write easy to access literature, but they are expressing their ideas. You can argue how good or bad they are all you want, but the fact is they write story's with the story in mind. People like Alvin-Earthworm don't deserve prize money because they haven't created anything. Instead they've recycled something else and put a new bow on it. If Nintendo contacted Alvin-Earthworm and sanctioned him to make a series of Mario stories, it would be a different thing entirely because he would be fulfilling the original creator's desires. Instead he is banking on someone else's work.

I doubt you will ever understand, many people wont, but plain and simple it is not in any way ethical to receive an award of money for something that isn't entirely yours.

[ZekeySpaceyLizard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ8aWSGxG4o

[anigen]

to be completely honest i just laughed so hard at this that i spit water all over my screen

[Cambo]

I keep hearing about this audience stuff. Tailored to an audience, there's an audience for it. People say these things like it makes any sort of difference. The second you consider the audience instead of the story or work at hand is the second you've failed as an artist.

The point of these things is to tell a story, whether or not it be narrative. Every piece of art tells a story conveyed through emotional representation. That is a basic and fundamental fact. The problem, a good story is a personal story. Something that comes from you and is told only through your own understand of what needs to be said. If do things like "tailor" then you are no longer working for the sake of the story, you are working for the sake of appeasement, and are no longer creating art, but instead a product.

So in short, yes, yes a sprite movie IS without merit because it is made the way it is to attract viewers through easily recognized imagery and ideas. Cambo, you yourself have admitted to not watching sprite movies so I can understand how you've missed a number of details. I happen to watch everything that wins awards or gets featured, and pretty much everything else that I have time to watch, because I want to find quality everywhere. Here is something about sprite movies, and I know many of these things myself because I tried my hand at a couple sprite movies in the first weeks I had Flash; they are easily made and mark a lack of effort on the part of the author, things like Madness or what have you are as simplistic and require all the exact same animating abilities in the same way and the drawings can be done by anyone. Combine those and what is the logical deduction? The author does not care, and therefor the piece is worthless.

It is not about whether people enjoy the work. There are people who enjoy forcing batteries into their penis through their urethra. It's about the fact that a sprite movie is not someone's own work. The story isn't even theirs, because it's written with characters who were not created by them. Could you imagine is a Legend of Zelda fan-fiction was a best-selling book on the New York Times tables? Could you imagine if it beat the latest Stephanie Meyers or Stephen King endeavor? Both King and Meyers are very commercial authors who write easy to access literature, but they are expressing their ideas. You can argue how good or bad they are all you want, but the fact is they write story's with the story in mind. People like Alvin-Earthworm don't deserve prize money because they haven't created anything. Instead they've recycled something else and put a new bow on it. If Nintendo contacted Alvin-Earthworm and sanctioned him to make a series of Mario stories, it would be a different thing entirely because he would be fulfilling the original creator's desires. Instead he is banking on someone else's work.

I doubt you will ever understand, many people wont, but plain and simple it is not in any way ethical to receive an award of money for something that isn't entirely yours.

I don't know, to be honest. I haven't seen any of Kirbopher's sprite movies and I think maybe 1 of Alvin's things so I'm not arguing the merits of them specifically. I'm just wondering why people liek you hate them so much. That pretty much covers it suppose.

But I'd definitely disagree with "The second you consider the audience instead of the story or work at hand is the second you've failed as an artist." I don't think that considering what the audience is experiencing is failure. You say "at the expense of the story or work" but I think that that's really subjective and who's to say that making something easier to follow for the audience, or adding jokes to a tepid script makes it less artistic? It's really down to what you consider artistic. You say that once you tailor to an audience you're creating an audience as opposed to a story but when you're creating stories that aren't with an audience in mind what are you making? I can't think of a single example of that. Inaccessible literary masterpieces like The Remembrance Of Things Past are artistically profound (according to critics, I can't read it) but the audience is the intellectuals and intelligentsia. Reading it, it's definitely written for them. Books like Ulysses are inaccessible but it's written with so many intertextual and lingual crossovers that its intended audience needs to be well-versed in classical writings to fully grasp it. Andy Warhol's pop art has an audience of intellectual elites, and it's questioning what they see as art. It's still very artistic, and it has an intended audience. Dada art can only be properly understood in an artistic context similarly. I think it's not unartistic to speak to your audience, or even make stuff to entertain or challenge them, like Joyce does. The difference seems to be that when Joyce does it it's a masterpiece but when Di Morrissey or Marian Keyes does it it's trashy. And that's more a reflection on the esteem of the audience than the artwork or the artist.

Maybe that's my ignorance, like you said earlier. It probably comes down to what artistic is, and that's an argument I can't win, because it's just so massive. So I just don't get beat up about it. I mean seriously, hating a guy? I don't think I hate anybody I know, let alone people on the internet.

[ZekeySpaceyLizard]

its official people


sprites are for intellectuals


YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST

QUICK, GO TO SHYGUYKINGDOM AND START DOWNLOADIN THEM PNG'S

[Cambo]

its official people


sprites are for intellectuals


YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST

QUICK, GO TO SHYGUYKINGDOM AND START DOWNLOADIN THEM PNG'S

what i said was that creating something for an audience to respond to isn't inartistic, using stuff created for intellectuals (like Ulysses) and stuff created for the masses (like Marian Keyes) as separate examples. that doesn't mean everything ever created was made for intellectuals.