Jon Vs. The Volcano

[Adam Clough]

I just wanna say that Jon Barton has gotta be the most shallowest reviewer in EP history. Newbies who become spoiled brats are gonna murder this community.



To be fair, this was not the start of an original topic, so Adam didn't blatantly start an entire thread just to state this opinion - Gorosaurus

[Andres]

That's the most absurd accusation I've ever heard.

[Aaron Haynes]

Seconded. Barton is among the best critics in the community. Check out his archive on Lock 'N Toad.

[Andres]

check out your nonexistent updates.

[Aaron Haynes]

The next one, which I was working on for about three or four hours today, will have over 70 new reviews. No prize for guessing where they're coming from.

* shifts topic back to EP being awesome *

[Molotov]

EP was the first active 3dmm website I found, after finding a link to it on the dead website 3dmm.org

I actually found out about the community by typing McZee in Google. I never called 3d movie maker 3dmm, so I never thought of typing in 3dmm.com

[Gourry Inverse]

Really?
I first discovered the community when I went online for 3DMM tutorials. 3dmm.co.uk was the first site I found. The first movies I downloaded were the I Know series, Rebirth of 3DMM, and DD.

[Adam Clough]

Originally posted by Andres De La Hoz
That's the most absurd accusation I've ever heard.

Any hate for Tuna aside, he actually said this about Bird Sanctuary

Originally posted by Jon Barton
" Default scenery, badly made HMCs and drawn-out set pieces are not what a comedy should boast "

" What's wrong with Bird Sanctuary, what's really wrong with it, is not so much a case of trying too hard as it is astonishingly underachieving. The directorial effort is shockingly lazy, made even worse considering this was co-directed by Heavy J. Cuts are shoddy, angles are non-existent (even during the rare HM scenery) and the action itself is simply put, boring. "

" Watching default characters having a conversation next to a vase stand was all fun and games back in 97 but now it shows it's age "

" The first Vlarion, that also used default scenery but isn't blessed with actual voice actors is more entertaining "

He gave it 4 outa 10 for this alone. Like as if anybody could've made this shot for shot with completely handmade scenes and characters and it would've made it a good movie.
I mean come on, what the fuck is this shit? Imagine him bashing Sgt Steve for the same reasons and telling me he isn't shallow.

[Andres]

I do agree with him on that, Adam. Making movies with default scenes is idiotic, uncharming, lazy, and serves no purpose whatsoever other than to completely destroy whatever possible voice you wanted to have.

Sure, some people can develop a style out of using default scenes (old sapone shorts come to mind).

[Adam Clough]

Dude, thats just being totally ignorant to the movie because seeing defualt scenes gets up your ass. They're what makes the movie. It had nothing to do with lazyness, it was intended to be that way. And it might seem completely stupid to you and Jon seeing them there, but it shouldn't be to the point where you work yourself up so much over it that you make yourself not enjoy the movie for what it is. You understand what I'm getting at?

[Andres]

No, I don't. I don't give a shit what the intentions are. Make your own scenes and stop wasting my time.

[Aaron Haynes]

Jon Barton's review of Bird Sanctuary
And what's worse is that Tuna has made a real meal out of these scenes and written it all into the script, making it seem patchy and best and lazy at most. Indeed, the notion of antagonist Tarbash owning a pot selling business is simply to clarify the default vase stand's relevance in the story, and if this is unfair or false then there's nothing in the film to suggest otherwise.

You skipped this part, where Jon clarified his position; the default scenery was blatantly used to move the story forward, on top of being an easy way out of animating custom scenery. Bird Sanctuary compromises it's story to fit the default scenery, often for long stretches of screentime. There's a huge difference between a side joke about a director's laziness and adapting the story, almost fatally so, to fit limitations to the program that have long since faded from the realm of accepted use. I liked Bird Sanctuary, but Jon's complaints ring true; very little analysis of the plot is needed to reveal that most of what happens is artificially segwayed into the narrative without any coherent reason. Films like this are fun once in a while, but second glances betray their haphazard nature. Their lasting narrative qualities are nonexistant -- they polarize audiences, simple as that.

Either way, your decision that he's a spoiled newbie and shallow critic based on one review is pretty shallow in itself. He's reviewed over 40 movies, and while occasionally I don't agree with him, I've always been able to understand where he's coming from.

http://www.lockntoad.com/reviewarchive.htm

[The Chinese Jew]

So Fred, I'm just wondering...

in Powerplay 2, do you guys retaliate against me and Cliff Mosher...seeing the way we kinda attacked you guys in our Ching and Mosher series?

[Adam Clough]

Relax Arron, don't speak up to me like you think I'm smart.
Plain and simple Jon got sour faced cause he didn't like seeing defualt scenery.
Its like a kid whinging about watching a movie thats in Black & White.
I don't think its fair on Tuna's movie that someone can't accept that it was made to be a simple default scene movie and review it without being able to get over themselves.
And what really gets me is that if someone can't even look past something that was so obviously intentional, how will they accept new people who come here who've made movies with defualt scenes because its what they know?
It puts pressure on other newbies to make their movies eye-candy masterpeices instead of just concentrating on the soul of what they're doing.
They feel the weight of the high expectations, can't grasp them, and then give up making movies altogether.
No offence but kinda like how Re-dux is more eye-candy than it is movie, y'know?

[Aaron Haynes]

If I respond point by point to that post it's gonna take me an hour, because I don't even know where to begin. Instead I'm just going to say that you've served up the ultimate strawman argument, turning Jon's analysis of Bird Sanctuary into a pedantic assault on a position that nobody here is taking. All of the tried-and-true rationalizations for laziness are here, the heart-and-soul misunderstood newbie, the unfair preference for soulless eye candy over real substance, and the arrogant self-absorbed critic who puts preference over objective quality. To cap it all off, you've even managed to insult Redux again, bringing it into an argument that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Jon's review is not an example of a newbie putting their heart and soul into a film and being held to unfair standards for 'eye candy'. It's a criticism of Bird Sanctuary's direction, editing, pacing, and scripting. You've inserted your own bias for good animation into his review and this argument, and confused laziness for lack of skill. I mean, for fuck's sake, man -- you're championing DEFAULT SCENERY. This isn't a fucking stylistic decision, it's LAZINESS. You're practically one step away from accusing anything with a moving camera of being soulless eye candy! Put things in perspective, for Christ's sake -- I enjoyed Bird Sanctuary, just as I enjoyed Johnny Samsonite, but I'm not going to applaud Tuna or Fester for making a sloppy but entertaining diversion. And they're certainly not on the same level as the films where people really DID put their heart and soul into their camera angles, art design, scenery creation, visual consistency, editing, scripting, voicing, and scoring; in other words, putting a serious effort into communicating their vision through the medium of film. Visuals don't make a film by themselves, yes, but no one here is claiming that. But if you really think that the visual and directing quality of a film should be unconditionally waived for something like Bird Sanctuary, I simply can't take your assessment of any movie seriously.

[Lord Trasher]

Bird Sanctuary sucked.

[Aaron Haynes]

I love you, Trasher.

[Ramza Brave]

Perhaps we're all forgetting that our opinions will eternally differ.
I can see rights and wrongs from both sides. So, instead of aruing, this looks like a situation to agree to disagree.

[Adam Clough]

Prehaps I'm forgetting Arron will eternally be Denis Franz in Die Hard 2.

I shouldn't have to post again, but if I don't draw attention to the reason why half the community doesn't make movies then who else will?
But HEY whats really important is that Bird Sanctuary sucked and we can all celebrate Arron's victory over the EVIL Tuna and his man-slave Adam and sip the blood of Konrad Chan from champange glasses. HO HO HO HO

Hey Arron, what sets the metal detectors off first huh?

[Fredrick]

You spelt his name wrong three times.

New update should arrive sometime today.

[Aaron Haynes]

Originally posted by Adam Clough
Prehaps I'm forgetting Arron will eternally be Denis Franz in Die Hard 2.

Baseless character attack. Doubly funny because it applies to you much more than it does to me, and the ultimate proof for this resides in the Redux thread.

I shouldn't have to post again, but if I don't draw attention to the reason why half the community doesn't make movies then who else will?

Glad you're here to set the record straight, because if anyone has their finger on the pulse of the community, it's most definitely you, who hasn't replied to a movie thread apart from Redux in years, who honestly believes that no movie should ever need more than 3DMM provides to enhance its visual quality, and whose leading philosophy seems to be that we should unconditionally praise any movie that anyone puts forth because at least they did something. You're out of touch, plain and simple. You don't make movies, you don't review movies, and most of the time you don't watch movies, so anything you have to say about the way the rest of us should be judging movies simply isn't going to mean much to me.

But HEY whats really important is that Bird Sanctuary sucked and we can all celebrate Arron's victory over the EVIL Tuna and his man-slave Adam and sip the blood of Konrad Chan from champange glasses. HO HO HO HO

This is hilarious. I'm not even going to glorify that sensationalist load of crap with a response.

Hey Arron, what sets the metal detectors off first huh?

Hmmm, well let's see. It clearly can't be the lead in my ass, because in between humoring your inane babbling I've been working on Alternate Vlarion 4. I suppose the shit in my brains doesn't qualify either, because if I'm at fault for not recognizing Bird Sanctuary as a noble, admirable effort being unfairly attacked by substanceless eye-candy freaks, then so is most of the rest of the community, who I assume can recognize the difference between the occasional fun flick and a real film like Ghost in the Shell, Liquid Sunshine, Powerplay, Final Fantasy: The Ultimate Epic, or Gnomes. How many of those have you seen, by the way?

The final nail in the coffin: Even Tuna understands that Bird Sanctuary is a harmless, fun little movie that was cranked out without a lot of effort.

[Jon Barton]

Adam Clough, your accusations are noted and frankly, you're way out. I disliked Bird Sanctuary thanks to the comedy ideals (which weren't altogether fantastically stimulating) and also the fact that every joke was drawn out to match the bad directorial effort. The idea of me getting "sourfaced" at default scenery is ironically amusing as not too long ago I reviewed and I seem to remember enjoyed Vlarion 1-4, all of which involved a fair bit of deafult scenery. And so we come to the notion that I'm spoiled? It may seem like whining like a kid to you, but to me it makes accurate sense. Bird Sanctuary is entertaining granted but at the end of the day what you're trying to say is that the whole movie was designed using default scenery based on the premise that it's a gag lasting the movie's entire length, suggesting furthermore that we should be crapping ourselves through the entirety of the film for this reason.

I distinctly remember saying "if I've missed the point, it wasn't obvious" and if this indeed was the point, then the latter is certainly made far more factual since the film's release. And in Bird Sanctuary's complete defence, it was a harmless, fun little movie, and these being Tuna's words you probably should take it into account.

As for the rest, basically read what Aaron said. And what Ramza said. And think about it.

[Andres]

Aaron's way of owning people is so brilliant that I'm not going to use swear words from now on.

[Demented Ferret]

Hey, you invented the 'Quote tiny pieces of peoples 'wrong' opinions so its virutally impossible to justify their reasons without making themselves look like asses' method.

[Adam Clough]

Ok, I got talked into coming back..

Jon, glad you at least came because I started thinking you'd be too pusy to say anything when someone turned the tables on ya.
But just so you know, I don't think you're a bad guy or anything, I really don't know you well enough so I haven't said anything like that. And I'm sorry if I've sounded harsh.
But about your attitude towards peoples movies, its not just me, ALOT of other people have being same the same things and I know alot of them don't make movies because guys like you scare them away from making them.
I'm not asking you to change your ways, its all your own personal view, but maybe you shouldn't be in the position that you're in as a reviewer cause of the affect that you have on too many people.
I can appreciate that you speak honestly and say just what you think, but people really do take it personally and it breaks their spirits.
Thats all I've been trying to say the whole time, I've avoided arguing with Aaron cause he's head's too thick and he thinks I'm just singling you out because I like the movie [which I haven't seen].