- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:4000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1338 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
51 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 16646
I can't be the only one here to have stumbled upon this utter gem.
Without a doubt, this has become my favourite adult cartoon and I can't wait for the next season.
Dark, clever, brilliantly amusing. Really fucking dark in places.
There are episodes on YT but some of these have had the voices altered to avoid automatic take downs I guess?
Here's a link to the first where a TV box has been used instead; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68IH4u-t7Zc
And one of my favourite clips:
3+3 = 6
|>>|| No. 19901
New episode out on the torrents lads. Been there since yesterday, forgot to mention it, sorry! It's a good one, but then you knew that already.
|>>|| No. 19902
Going to watch that now. Just watching episode 3, though. Jesus Christ, that ending.
|>>|| No. 19920
S02E05 provided me with the comic relief I needed.
|>>|| No. 19932
If you're an adult who doesn't watch cartoons, you should watch Rick and Morty to remind yourself how right you are.
|>>|| No. 19933
I have legitimately been singing "Get Schwifty" to myself to remind me not to give a fuck about some things. It actually helps.
|>>|| No. 19935
Thanks OP, only just seen this and watching these cartoons are just what the doctor ordered.
|>>|| No. 19936
Just a quick heads up that Fox are going to air series 1. The first two episodes are available on demand while the rest seem to be shown back to back after midnight.
|>>|| No. 19944
Not only are you posting content from the official Adult Swim YouTube channel months after it was released, you're posting content from the official Adult Swim YouTube channel months after the very same content was posted in this thread. You're not one of us and you don't fit it in.
Back to Jerry daycare with you.
|>>|| No. 19945
Since you're such a fan of 90s cartoons, here's The Official Simpson's Guide To Winning a GS Cunt-off in Under Ten Minutes.
|>>|| No. 21745
I take it you lads are watching the new series? To me, it seems to have lost its edge.
|>>|| No. 21746
No, I think it's still great. I just think it got really popular and then everyone hyped it up and now they are whinging because it was never going to be good enough for them.
I'm actually feeling quite lucky to be the age I am and watching it, I'm as excited about it as I would be for early seasons of The Simpsons.
|>>|| No. 21747
The problem is the longer it goes on the less impact the larger story arcs have. When the first season ended it felt like something real, but then it went on again. The Rick went to jail and it was framed as a really moving thing with a sense of finality but no, he just escapes by being overpowered and not really even a very clever sort of plot.
|>>|| No. 21749
Agree. Episodes have ranged from bad (2&3) to quite good - nothing on edge. Should have run for 2 seasons. No more.
|>>|| No. 21752
Its not as good this season to be honest. Just feels like it's trying to be "rick and morty" instead of just being rick and morty.
|>>|| No. 21832
So, Rick and Morty fans are the new Bronies apparently.
|>>|| No. 21835
I imagine it would be something to do with the weird psedo-intecectual snobbery that surrounds the show, and this is now resulting in counter snobbery. The backlash when a show is so hyped is inevitable.
And the over the top reaction to szechuan sauce makes the fans look like a bunch of meme spouting sheeple.
The fan base is rapidly becoming the worst thing about the show.
|>>|| No. 21836
I'd like to clarify I don't consider the weird pseudo-intellectual snobbery to be part of the show itself, but there is a certain aspect of the fan base that seems to think this show is somehow highly sophisticated and complex, which as likable as it is, it isn't.
|>>|| No. 21837
>The fan base is rapidly becoming the worst thing about the show.
We're long passed that now. I thought this image was a joke until I saw people posting it over social media.
|>>|| No. 21838
I think that the pseudo-intellectual snobbery is a sign of how far pop culture has sunk. Anything that shows even a hint of intelligence is hailed as the new Shakespeare, because most TV is explicitly produced for an audience that isn't particularly bright and only half-watching.
I was listening to a roundtable discussion of BBC producers the other day. Everyone around the table agreed that a prime-time programme needs a "reveal" about every four minutes, otherwise they'll lose half the audience to Facebook. The consensus was that the average viewer only catches about a third of the programme, hence the need to foreshadow and then reiterate any crucial information. There needs to be constant visual and auditory stimulus to grab the attention of the viewer, but the information density needs to be kept very low. All media is created with a stereotypical or imaginary audience in mind; for TV, that imaginary audience effectively has distraction-induced brain damage.
|>>|| No. 21840
I would be interested in hearing that round table if it is available online.
|>>|| No. 21841
Little points of anticipation and revelation, like miniature cliffhangers within the programme. The prototypical example is The Antiques Roadshow - it's a fundamentally boring programme, but it's propelled by the anticipation of how much the item might be worth. Nobody would watch it if the expert started with the valuation and then waffled on about the item for three or four minutes.
TV talent contests are entirely designed around the reveal - a majority of screen time isn't the performance, but the build up of tension until the judges give their verdict. Property programmes are riddled with little teases. It has even crept into factual programming, with documentaries being structured as a "personal journey" or a "challenge".
Next time you're watching some shit prime-time fodder, look for beats in the programme where a question is asked, then answered shortly afterwards. Listen to how often narration is used to hint at what might happen next or create a sense of jeopardy. The most blatant examples are just before a commercial break, but they're used throughout. Once you're aware of it, you see it everywhere.
|>>|| No. 21842
I wonder if pop culture is being conditioned to believe being a condescending arsehole is the same as being intelligent. It seems to be how intelligent characters are written now, rather than any intelligent behavior of a character. For example rick builds things which you might perceive as a demonstration of intelligence, but the way it presents is more like a magic power. The times where he is shown to be actively figuring things out is minimal. Most of the time he is just obnoxious because he knows or thinks he knows something the other characters don't. The same is true of other badly written intelligent characters such as Sherlock, doctor who, the scientist arsehole in STD, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. I suppose the virtue of Rick and Morty is that the other characters acknowledge this, by pointing out he is an arsehole and that he is like some sort of trickster Djinn, rather than acting like that is just what intelligence is.
|>>|| No. 21843
I feel like part of that is just good storytelling, but you are treating it like a pejorative, star wars would be really dull if they showed Luke blowing up the deathstar in the first 5 min and then told the rest as flashback of how things reached that point. Things need to progress and escalate and there needs to be uncertainty for the climax to have meaning. If you are wondering, yes my understanding of this makes me a fantastic lover.
|>>|| No. 21844
> It has even crept into factual programming, with documentaries being structured as a "personal journey" or a "challenge
I fucking hate this. Humanisation in nature documentaries too.
|>>|| No. 21845
>The same is true of other badly written intelligent characters such as Sherlock, doctor who, the scientist arsehole in STD, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
|>>|| No. 21847
The trouble there is that it's difficult to write an intelligent character unless you are an extremely intelligent writer. Therefore there isn't much realistic alternative other than to make the character magic their intelligence out of nowhere.
For example, you could try to write a dramatisation of Einstein discovering relativity or whatever. But unless you understand the physics behind that yourself, you can't implement any of it into the writing, so what else can you do but show a montage of him frowning at a chalkboard full of equations and then a eureka moment?
|>>|| No. 21851
They love a clickbait headline, but they're also remarkably insightful. They treat pop culture for what it is - an implicit and extremely powerful form of propaganda.
|>>|| No. 21853
It is difficult to write intelligent characters , but no more difficult than not writing something derivative. Laziness bleeds into creativity because doing better is hard work and requires you to fight for integrity so creatives pick the path of least resistance and good enough, becomes good enough. That doesn't mean they can't do better just that people aren't willing to try.
|>>|| No. 21854
>It is difficult to write intelligent characters
Is it, though? An intelligent character can make a split-second decision that a less intelligent person would take weeks of thought or research to realise was the better thing to do. Luckily for writers, they can take weeks to think about it because that's how fiction works.
|>>|| No. 21855
It's incredibly easy to write intelligent characters. You only need to write about them succeeding at mentally taxing tasks, and/or impressing or bamboozling other characters with their mental prowess. You're talking about an author proving their intelligence by writing things that will impress an intelligent audience. That's totally different and also likely impossible, because you can only write in such a way as to flatter the reader's intelligence whether they are intelligent or not. The intelligent ones know this, and therefore never know if they're really intelligent or just being flattered.
|>>|| No. 21856
Intelligent people often think more slowly, but come to better conclusions. They think in entirely different ways to averagely intelligent people and have access to a different set of tools. Stamina is a vital part of intelligence - really smart people have an almost endless capacity for deep thought. It's very difficult to represent deep and nuanced thinking on screen and damned near impossible if you're not a deep and nuanced thinker yourself.
Elon Musk springs to mind. The engineers who have worked with him at Tesla and SpaceX have commented that there's only one truly exceptional thing about Musk - he asks incredibly good questions. He's quick on the uptake and has a very good capacity for technical knowledge, but his defining trait is his ability to ask a single question about a topic that forces an expert to re-evaluate the received wisdom. He patiently listens to someone explain the state of the art, then unerringly hones in on the part of their explanation that doesn't quite add up. What matters isn't that Musk is smart, but that he makes everyone around him smarter.
I've been lucky enough to work with some incredibly smart people - ACM Turing winners, MacArthur grant recipients, Fellows of the Royal Society. To a man, they've struck me as quiet, humble and generous. They're often remarkably ordinary in any context other than their field of expertise. They play in terrible rock bands and get winded at five-a-side, they lose pub quizzes and forget where they put their car keys. I don't see geniuses represented in fiction who look anything like the bona-fide geniuses I've met.
|>>|| No. 21857
I think it's something to do with detective novels. It's boring to watch or read about someone doing actual research, but the way a detective novel is structured you can create quite a strong narrative while dropping lots of little clues that the viewer/reader can look out for and try to assemble themselves (which is part of the draw, even if the writers cheat and give the detective information the viewer doesn't have, they can find it educational) all leading up to the reveal.
>Of course! He was shot with the rifle that was hanging on the wall at the start!
House is a detective show, Lie to me is a detective show, Bull is a detective show, but so many other things tweak the pattern a little further. They keep repeating the same formula in slightly different contexts.
|>>|| No. 22283
Anyone who likes Rick and Morty, this vid is worth a watch:
It's basically if Rick and Morty was set in the real world, and they were Australian.
|>>|| No. 22285
I wonder if the repeated threats to kill Rick and Morty were aimed at Dan and Justin amid the stalled recommissioning negotiations.
|>>|| No. 22287
Personally I enjoyed it and moreso enjoyed the reactions of the general R&M fanbase to it (a lot of very angry people frothing about it being shit and szechuan sauce etc.). It's just an actual April fools episode.
I'm also familiar with the flash artist's old YT stuff, so that helps. And it reminds me of Doc and Mharti.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]