"Critters": A Reappraisal

[Maxie Zeus]

Heh heh heh. Toldja it was coming.

I normally don't post the reviews I write for my site, but I'm feeling mischievous and feel like tossing a firecracker into the ant heap:



"Critters" is one of those episodes that no one will give a second glance to, so universally is it derided as the worst episode ever perpetrated by the series. And it’s not hard to see why. A goofy premise, a truly bizarre pair of villains, and some unfunny "comic" dialogue: The thing looks like an Adam West-style escapade without the charm, or a B-movie without the conviction.

Even a second look will probably fail to impress; it’s too easy to leave in place the prejudices aroused by a first viewing. But search it receptively, actively, watchfully, and something else begins to come into focus.

You might start by turning down the sound, or at least plugging your ears whenever a character opens his or her mouth. Visually, this is one of the darker TNBA episodes, full of apocalyptic reds and blacks. The same colors dominate the mutant animals: a bull the color of dried blood, and carnivorous "chickens" whose feathers hang like black funeral crepe. (Everyone remembers the "bugs" without remembering that, in terms of screen time, they have barely a presence in the story.) Darkness frames many of the scenes.

As I say, watch the episode without listening to the characters -- though you should let the dissonant, wailing score wash over you -- and it would hardly occur that you that it is meant to be campy. Well then, if it's not "Adam West" is it supposed to be a "monster" movie? It has none of the scale of one. Some big animals get loose and do some serious damage, at the instigation of a criminal who just wants a truck full of money. And that’s pretty much the level at which Batman and the authorities treat it. Then too there are the jokes and puns -- both visual and verbal -- that undercut the sense of serious danger. Of course, there is a sense that people could get hurt, but it's only the danger that comes from facing a wild animal, not a malevolent intelligence.

The result is an odd sense of displaced but undispelled menace. Something is wrong or out of control, and yet nothing specifically stands out as a locus of danger. The threats are both familiar and unfamiliar, so that the viewer is unsure whether to take it seriously or not. The same indecision afflicts the characters, who react with a kind of wary incredulity; they can neither believe nor disbelieve in what they are seeing. (That is also why they make uneasy jokes; what else are you going to say when a giant cow steps on your car?) It’s the horror of watching the world, while still looking exactly as it did before, begin to behave in very strange ways. The situation is, to use a special word, "uncanny."

It is uncanny in the way that dreams are uncanny, in the way they mimic the surface of the real world while abandoning its substance. And "Critters," it slowly dawns on you, has the feel of a lucid nightmare, a vision from which one struggles unsuccessfully to awake. It mimics the kind of dream that terrifies by merging the real world with the dream world and which, except for a certain hellish gleam to the landscape, might as easily inspire laughter as terror. Dream-like incongruity and incredulity reach their apotheosis when Farmer Brown's "messenger" arrives at police headquarters. The sight of a monster might shock everyone back into consciousness. But the sight of a billygoat, of a billygoat that talks, of a billygoat that demands millions in ransom while standing quietly in the middle of a dark office as the giant cows rampage outside -- this is a nightmare that stands with one foot planted firmly in reality while still vomiting forth unexpected horror.

So too with the villains, the inane Farmer Brown and his hormone-stuffed daughter. He and his creations have no glint of the daemonic, as does Dr. Cuvier or his minions in the similar, genetically-inclined "Splicers." And yet the very banality of his motives -- loot and revenge -- and his personality -- "Always check your shoes and count the money," he advises Emmylou -- make him the more unnerving villain. The banal is by definition more common than the outre. This man could be your neighbor, which should be the very opposite of a comforting thought. Your neighbor might not be in the business of making giant animals. Still, you might wonder, what could he be in the business of making?

(It's only a cartoon. Still, we're talking about a grudge-nursing lunatic who causes high-tech havoc in a major metropolis: the frightening disparity between the savage and puerile mind and the awesome destruction it unleashes should have more resonance today than it did in 1998.)

"Critters" does to the viewer what its critters do to the characters – it purposefully confounds expectations and defies easy categorization. It works – if you will accept my late and belated claim that it does work – by deploying precisely those clashing tones and inconsistent styles that its detractors complain about, with the aim of unsettling the mind and spirit. After all, in aesthetics and entertainment, as in life, we like the world to come in nice, neat, dependable, predictable packages, and it upsets us when our expectations are thwarted. In doing so, the episode takes a daring line, and challenges us to accept the uncomfortable premise that the world, both in fact and art, has no duty to conform to our prejudices.

Rating: * * * 1/2 (out of * * * *)

[Borg4of3]

I mean no disrespect, but I've gotta say that this is proof that one can drink himself sober, or in otherwords, analyze a painting, created by flinging poop at a wall, into a Masterpiece; and the artist replies with, "What the heck are you.... yeah, yeah! Thats what I meant!"

Well, I guess you could look at it that way - that its so insanely absurd it works on another level... but I'm not. If they were trying to do a campy show, than the darkness you mentioned doesn't fit in. If they were trying to do a dark comedy, there was very little comedy. If it was supposed to be a horror/shock value episode, the whole premise was just too wierd I feel. Of course, you mentioned that in the show's 'inconsistent styles', but while it definatley achieved that, I just can't find myself appreciating that as a good thing.

And, then there's the nitpicks- how Farmer Brown continued his research after the courts ruined him, how a goat got into GCPD without anyone noticing, how Farmer Brown was outfighting Batman at the end, how Farmer Brown survived, etc.

Of course, to each his own - I thought the dialogue saved the episode.

"You've got to have a little faith Sharon... Karen?"
"We've just been run over by a cow,"
"Toro! Toro!... yah!"
"So you survive the Joker and the rest of those freaks, only to buy it from Jedd Clampett and a bunch of bugs,"

But I will agree that Farmer Brown isn't too bad a villain. Those biological monstrosities and know-how rival HARDAC's duplicants and the Scarecrow's fear gas in a few areas, and his unusual life morals and wierd treatment of reality do make him interesting enough for a reprisal, and hopefully better story.

[DisneyBoy]

I like you analysis. Not afraid to try to see Critters in a different light. I did get that feeling while watching the episode that it was a sort of oddly nightmarish tale. Still, my inner-critic finally started to surface and made me decide to not enjoy it. But it wasn't all bad....just not worth the time and effort...by far!

[BLACKHEART]

You know I'd rather watch Critters than a single Baby Doll episode.

[Manhunter]

Originally posted by Borg4of3
Of course, to each his own - I thought the dialogue saved the episode.

"You've got to have a little faith Sharon... Karen?"
"We've just been run over by a cow,"
"Toro! Toro!... yah!"
"So you survive the Joker and the rest of those freaks, only to buy it from Jedd Clampett and a bunch of bugs,"

One line I found rather funny:

"I'll be takin' that snazzy belt'a your'n." Not so much the actual line,as the delivery.

[Heehaw]

I doubt such deep thinking was put into the writing of this episode. It's a 3rd rate story, with 4th rate quality animation. To overanalyze it is to elevate it which it shouldn't be. There is a tendency, in the art world, to analyze something and give it meaning although the creator didn't mean what the historians say. Same here.

[Karkull]

You have some good points, Maxie, let me tell you that. It was corny, and had some really bad moments (watching the mutant chickens get defeated by barbacue sauce was a groaner), but it did have it's high points.

Would Critters have been better as a Superman episode? Sure, we would have lost Bullock and Farmer Brown calling them "Batfolk," but Superman, a man raised on a farm, dealing with a maniac farmer would have been neat.

[G. Wen]

I never thought "Critters" was the worst Batman episode. I didn't think it was the best episode, but I didn't think it was the worst one either.
"Critters" tries to be twisted and I like twistedness. But it fails to be twisted, and I think that is what annoys most people. The episode fails at what it trys to convey, giving it a lackluster feeling.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Heehaw
There is a tendency, in the art world, to analyze something and give it meaning although the creator didn't mean what the historians say. Same here.

Ah, but you know exactly what the intentions were, don't you? No wonder you find analysis tiresome -- you find everything so plain and obvious that there is no point in even giving things another look. ;)

138 views. 138 people who now think I'm an idiot. . . . :D

[Heehaw]

I don't find analysis tiresome, only analysis of throw away stories. You're reading too much into the bug tale.

And don't ridicule me again, Professor.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Heehaw
I don't find analysis tiresome, only analysis of throw away stories. You're reading too much into the bug tale.

And don't ridicule me again, Professor.

You beg the question. Is it a throw away story? I have offered reasons for thinking it is not. You offer only the smug assertion that it is.

Interpretation and analysis are the art of figuring out what a story (or some other artwork) are on about. If you disagree with me (even if for no other reason than because you don't "see" anything in the story to reward such speculations) that is fine. But to dismiss an alternate interpretation merely because it doesn't conform to your pre-set judgement -- that is, merely because it is different from your own -- is grotesque.

Specious sophistication often looks ridiculous, and I cheerfully submit to the judgement that I look foolish. (I particularly like Borg4of3's "drinking himself sober" comment. LOL!) But trogdolytic prejudice also looks ridiculous. So why do I need to ridicule you, when you do such a good job of it on your own?

[Heehaw]

You're offering interpretation of a story featuring giant chickens, cattle, and insects. Those facts pretty much shatter any arguments in favor of it. It's too ridiculous a concept to even discuss. On top of that, the animation quality is abysmal. Why use the medium of animation to tell a story(good or bad) if the quality is not the best it can be? If one looks at the badly animated episodes, they have always been the more poorly written scripts. Basically, the creators know it's a throw away yarn so they farm it out to 2nd rate animation studios like Akom. Of course, there are always exceptions but those are very few.

All I can say is that you're a hypocrite and you know exactly where I'm coming from based on the tone of your last couple of posts. You tell others to play nice, but get all defensive when someone calls you on something in a more direct fashion. I don't need to justify my earlier comments to anybody. What was posted is black and white and speaks for itself. If you don't like that explanation well then tough. If anyone is coming off as smug, then it's certainly you.


Going off topic, but needs to be said:

Some of the WF mods(actually 2 of them) don't particularly like my POV on Justice League. It goes against the majority opinion and thus I was banned a few weeks ago from the JL portion of the site. Maxie's open bashing of me(in this thread) and the overwhelmingly sugarcoated critiques of episodes(generally) are certainly clear signs of all of this. It almost seems like he's trying to get me to say something controversial(not too difficult to achieve) so I can be censored even further. That's fine. Heehaw can be put to rest, not like we're joined at the hip and not like posting comments on this forum is the high point of my day. This place is an excellent source for information and news, that's why I'm here. Nothing more, nothing less.

There sometimes seems to be a tendency on this site to criticize those who go against the flow of public opinion. We're labeled naysayers, trolls, whiners, troublemakers, whatever. My gripes, as they pertain to JL, are legitimate and in no way indicative of a troll. Most of the time, constructive comments are provided, sometimes not(i.e. venting, nothing spectacular we all are guilty of it), so what's the threat? I also don't name call(until this thread).

I don't watch the show and look for things to complain about. They pop out at me and are impossible for me not to notice. The flaws are due to underfunding. Well, that's fine. It's fact, so be it. With that being the case, that doesn't excuse it and I will most certainly make my voice heard if need be. If all the comments are overwhelmingly positive, the show will continue, most likely unchanged and that just can't happen. If I am the lone negative voice, well then that's the way it has to be. Out of 10,001 comments, all positive but one, sometimes the negative one speaks the clearest and loudest.

I cut my Timm teeth on BTAS. That doesn't mean JL has to look like that series. All I want is the feel, attention to detail, and general quality craftmanship of it. The film-like presentation wouldn't be too shabby a request either. What we have now is a flatly composed, slightly above average looking American cartoon(when compared with what else is out there; Samurai Jack blows it away stylistically) that lacks even a single iota of what made those older shows sparkle. Give me the dramatic camera angles and Shirley Walker and I and many others will be alot happier.


But to dismiss an alternate interpretation merely because it doesn't conform to your pre-set judgement

Hey, that's my right to dismiss anything and everything that collides with my pre-set opinion about something. To compromise how I feel about anything and to "keep an open mind", the equivalent of mind rape, is to tarnish and compromise me as a person. I have strong opinions towards just about everything, including trivial cartoons. Get some principles and stand by them.

And if JL improves, IN MY EYES, I'll be the first to admit it. Based on what we have now, overall, I'm not going anywhere.

At least alot of us can say agree "War World" was hopefully the bottom of the barrel. I actually enjoyed "Fury". GASP!!!!.......

Oh yeah, not taking into account STAS(haven't seen them all), "Christmas with the Joker" is my personal choice for worst animated universe episode.

Sorry if I come off sounding like James Traficant. At least he's entertaining, as is this thread. Hardy har ho...

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Heehaw
You're offering interpretation of a story featuring giant chickens, cattle, and insects. Those facts pretty much shatter any arguments in favor of it.

Yeah, well, Citizen Kane is a movie about a guy who wants his sled back. I guess that pretty much shatters any arguments in favor of it.

Start with an uncharitable and dismissive attitude and you can trample on anything.

I didn't like "Critters" the first time I saw it. I thought pretty much the same thing you do. Then I looked at it a second time and was surprised to see it was more subtle and interesting than I remembered. So I changed my mind about it. And I wrote about why I changed my mind, and about what I think of it now.

I don't expect people to agree with me, and I don't expect to change anyone's mind. (Years of touting "Heroes" as one of the best Beyond episodes have taught me the futility of expectations.) I don't mind being treated as being crazy. (Again, I knew full well that my new opinion would be thought eccentric.)

But I do resent it when people insist, without argument or qualification, that it is illegitimate even to give "Critters" a second glance. Your entire tone and thrust is one designed not to argue that I am wrong (lots of people have said I am wrong, and I don't begrudge them that) but to argue that it is not even conceivable that I could be right.

I do not start with the assumption (as do you) that I am right and you are wrong. I merely start with the assumption that I could be right, and try to argue from there. Concede that one item -- not that I am right, but that I could be right -- and my entire quarrel with you vanishes.

Of course, that is a very minimal condition, and I would be happier still if you offered arguments for thinking I am wrong. So far as I can tell, you have offered only three, none of which is even superficially impressive:


[B]You're offering interpretation of a story featuring giant chickens, cattle, and insects. Those facts pretty much shatter any arguments in favor of it.

Hmmm. I must not have been in the creative writing seminar where the professor said "All stories about big bugs are bad. Always. Period." Still, even if I had I might have been skeptical: King Kong is a story about a big gorilla that gets loose in New York City. The Birds is about a flock of crazy seagulls (and blackbirds, and finches, etc.) making Melanie Daniels' life hell. Seems to me that subject matter does not automatically preclude quality.


[B]I doubt such deep thinking was put into the writing of this episode. It's a 3rd rate story

And what exactly is your reason for doubting such "deep thinking" went into it? Are you privy to the history of the episode, how it was written and developed, and know that no such effort went into it? The fact that you only "doubt" it tells me that you don't. Rather, from the fact that it seems to you a "bad" episode, you conclude that no deep thought went into it, and then turn around and say that because no deep thought went into it, it couldn't possibly be a good episode.

Or perhaps you doubt the story was intended to have such subtlety because you doubt the show's creative team has the intelligence or talent for it. Since that is the team that gave us "Over the Edge" and "Out of the Past" and "Heart of Ice" and "Perchance to Dream" and "Mad as Hatter," I don't think you would be on very firm ground if you tried that angle.

Anyway, if we're talking about auteurial "intentions" behind the episode, I think your claim is doubly doubtful. In the first place, the episode passed thru multiple collaborative hands between conception and final product: The story credit is to Steve Gerber, and the teleplay credit is to Joe R. Lansdale. We also know from various interviews and behind-the-scenes descriptions that the producers and directors are very hands-on with stories. There is, then, every possibility that the story changed and evolved in various directions as different people came into contact with it. Whether it was originally light and became darker, or whether it was originally dark and became lightened, whether the curious clash of styles I discern in it was the intended or unintentional byproduct of competing developments, I do not know. But it is the very nature of the collaborative process to make things more and not less complicated. You might at least pause and recognize that.

Secondly, the fact that an effect is unintended does not mean that it does not exist. I may light a match and cause an explosion; the fact that I did not intend to cause the explosion does not mean the explosion did not occur. Similarly, the makers of "Critters" might not have intended to create an episode that succeeds as a strange, nightmarish melange; that doesn't mean that the episode doesn't have that quality, and succeed because of it. I have the distinct impression that you have never done anything creative in your life, otherwise you would recognize that authors are not always responsible for what happens as a story develops, and can be quite as surprised as anyone else to see what they have wrought.


On top of that, the animation quality is abysmal. Why use the medium of animation to tell a story(good or bad) if the quality is not the best it can be? If one looks at the badly animated episodes, they have always been the more poorly written scripts. Basically, the creators know it's a throw away yarn so they farm it out to 2nd rate animation studios like Akom. Of course, there are always exceptions but those are very few.

You are misinformed. It is a pity the Cinefantastique commentaries were pulled from Jennifer Wand's site. Otherwise I could point you to multiple episodes where the team was forced by budget considerations to send scripts they thought were good to animators they knew were bad. You have always presumed to know a great deal more than you actually do.


All I can say is that you're a hypocrite and you know exactly where I'm coming from based on the tone of your last couple of posts. You tell others to play nice, but get all defensive when someone calls you on something in a more direct fashion. I don't need to justify my earlier comments to anybody. What was posted is black and white and speaks for itself. If you don't like that explanation well then tough. If anyone is coming off as smug, then it's certainly you.

Going off topic, but needs to be said:

Yes, there is a history here, and it is a history that you (not I) insist upon dredging up. What has this matter to do with Justice League? In what sense was my post on "Critters" a provocation to you? And my responses have been responses to the rude, insulting and vitriolic tone that you adopted toward my "reappraisal." No other poster here has been other than polite, and at worst teasingly skeptical. You, on the other hand, took it as an opportunity to reignite a vendetta that only you care about. (It seems to please you to imagine that I am obsessed with you. On the contrary, until this exchange I hadn't given you two seconds of thought in the last few months.)


It almost seems like he's trying to get me to say something controversial(not too difficult to achieve) so I can be censored even further.

I can't force you to say anything you don't will yourself to write. You cannot pin the blame on me for anything that you say.


There sometimes seems to be a tendency on this site to criticize those who go against the flow of public opinion. We're labeled naysayers, trolls, whiners, troublemakers, whatever. My gripes, as they pertain to JL, are legitimate and in no way indicative of a troll. Most of the time, constructive comments are provided, sometimes not(i.e. venting, nothing spectacular we all are guilty of it), so what's the threat?

No, the tendency is toward polite discussion and argument, either pro or con, and there remains on the JL board a number of posters who are very caustic in their criticism of the show. You, on the other hand, could not bring yourself to treat respectfully those who disagreed with you. That is why you are no longer permitted on that board. As for "constructive criticism," I recall your idea of something "constructive" was to say that Bruce Timm should be fired as quickly as possible.


Hey, that's my right to dismiss anything and everything that collides with my pre-set opinion about something. To compromise how I feel about anything and to "keep an open mind", the equivalent of mind rape, is to tarnish and compromise me as a person. I have strong opinions towards just about everything, including trivial cartoons. Get some principles and stand by them.

Yes, it is your right to dismiss anything and anyone who disagrees with you. It is also your right to drool and pick your nose in public. But you cannot complain when people form a low opinion of you based on that behavior.

Anyway, it's funny how you set yourself up as a paragon of honesty because you dogmatically and inflexibly oppose anyone who disagrees with your opinion of JL, while at the same time accusing those who oppose your opinion of being intellectually dishonesty and of "sugarcoating."

[Heehaw]

Ha, ha you sure like to hear yourself talk don't you, Professor. Big words, big speeches, big ego. It's a review of a cartoon, not a dissertation. There's one like you on every forum, it seems. There's one like me, too, the one who cuts through the bologne and double talk and tells it like it is. For the sake of clarity, I too will stoop to a long winded speech. Ha, ha, this is great.


I doubt such deep thinking was put into the writing of this episode. It's a 3rd rate story, with 4th rate quality animation. To overanalyze it is to elevate it which it shouldn't be. There is a tendency, in the art world, to analyze something and give it meaning although the creator didn't mean what the historians say. Same here.

Ah, but you know exactly what the intentions were, don't you? No wonder you find analysis tiresome -- you find everything so plain and obvious that there is no point in even giving things another look.

In what sense was my post on "Critters" a provocation to you?

That's my original response(followed by your followup) to your reappraisal. There's nothing there that is insulting or contains any type of rudeness. I state my believe that I doubt much thought was put into it(the episode). I don't need concrete proof, it's intuition based on a lifetime of studying this sort of thing. It's an obvious throw away story to me and since it's my opinion you can just swallow it and move on. I state my "on the surface" view of the show(line 2) and state the tendency for art critics to overanalyze works of art(I minored in Art History so I think I know what I'm talking about). My "same here" comment is a direct reference to that overanalysis line. It's not a remark meant to downplay your interpretation or to be snide. Your follow up to it, though(see above), is just that. There was a Smiley involved, but we both know that is pretty meaningless given the past. My whole intent was not to diminish your view, just to comment that I didn't think such intricate thought was put into the creation of the episode. Calm down, Professor, everyone's not always to agree with you, but you are at least entitled to have your opinion.


And what exactly is your reason for doubting such "deep thinking" went into it?

Because it involves giant "poultry, pig, cattle, and bugs". Along with a talking goat, a human super-daughter, a fight that takes place on a "daytime"(a Bats no-no) faux backdrop, and barbeque sauce. Ha, ha, I can't believe we're quarreling over such drivel. You brought up King Kong and The Birds. Well, those are cinema classics that were masterfully crafted with tender loving care. I don't see "Critters" achieving their level of crediblity, given it's dreadful state(maybe it should be redone so it can achieve the legacy it so deserves) or being hailed as misunderstood genius in 50 years. Their extraordinary circumstances were existing within a universe designed to allow such out of this world events. We knew little about it; thus everything was plausible. TNBA has an established history and, although, it has it's share of extraordinary characters, they are still believable. Something Farmer Brown and company fail to achieve, at least to me and a few thousand other fans. Even "The Demon Within" which deals with demons and witchcraft was still a plausible situation because it was presented in a masterful way. Etrigan and company are established DC characters that are treated as guest stars; thus they belong. The episode had some great lines, brilliant TMS animation and presentation, and no talking goats.

To put it all into perspective, "Critters" as a concept and as executed was and is just plain silly and stupid.



Now for the fun stuff. Notice how most of your remarks are inflammatory. I don't see any of that in any of my previous posts in this thread. Yeah, I called you a hypocrite. Well, based on the indisputable facts, it's true:


I have the distinct impression that you have never done anything creative in your life, otherwise you would recognize that authors are not always responsible for what happens as a story develops,

Yeah, you've got me pegged as a lazy slob. I don't know jack or crap about the creative process. Awfully judgemental aren't we, Professor.


Yes, there is a history here, and it is a history that you (not I) insist upon dredging up.

The dredging up, in the public, is a necessary evil to establish why this conversation is even taking place. I clearly stated that I was going off topic and that it was necessary. Your snide remarks, before any of this occured are a direct result of your feelings towards me because of past occurances within the private message area(which were a result of your misinterpretations in certain public spaces). You're the bad guy here, not me. You initiated the condescending remark(s) here and in other places. I'm just responding.


You have always presumed to know a great deal more than you actually do.

Ditto, Professor.


I can't force you to say anything you don't will yourself to write. You cannot pin the blame on me for anything that you say.

Sure you can. Everytime you respond, I respond. It's like a reflex action, Professor, I can't help myself. I'm a real sick puppy and wanna hear you talk that intellectual talk because I like it. Do I sense finger pointing and a defensive tone, Professor? This is bordering on cryin' to mama.


You, on the other hand, could not bring yourself to treat respectfully those who disagreed with you. That is why you are no longer permitted on that board.

What in the heck are you talking about? I've always treated my fellow posters with the upmost respect. I've never read someone else's remarks and stated "you suck" or any variant of it. If I have ever done this to anyone, well I apologize. It certainly wasn't the intent. I don't think this applies to you, though, our valiant leader-elect.

I looked over a brief sampling of my past posts in the JL area and I never insulted or put down anyone's remarks. The only time I ever adopted a somewhat inflammatory tone is when YOU got on your soapbox. If I did it to anyone else, well it was in response to a remark made directly to me. When I do this, of course, there is going to be a more aggressive tone, but it is in no way disrespectful. One of the ambiguities of online conversation. I'm not the biggest user of Smilies, so alot of my intentions have, in the past, been misinterpreted, I'm afraid.

All I do is either provide information, agree or disagree, and most of the time, I give a reason why I disagree. It seems that most people can't handle my somewhat direct way when responding to certain subjects(mainly in the episode response areas of the JL board). If one can't handle my delivery, which is more direct and non-sugarcoated than most, well then so be it. I don't pull punches, nor will I roll over and be caustic, Professor. Out in the real world, I see through the BS that comes out of most people's mouths. I won't stand for it, and I will and do point it out when I perceive it.

I'm not saying that comments that conflict with my own, on this site, are BS. I'm saying my directness, in responding to the difference, is not contrary to the way alot of people interact with others on this site; thus it comes off as smug or arrogant. Well, I can't help that. That's the way I am and I'll admit it translates poorly to written form.


As for "constructive criticism," I recall your idea of something "constructive" was to say that Bruce Timm should be fired as quickly as possible.

Ha, ha, talk about taking something out of context. I believe the post after it mentioned something about sarcasm. It's called dry humor, Professor something you don't seem to understand very well. Actually, I think you get it, you just don't perceive it if it isn't spelled out with a Smiley or a wink and a nudge.

And what does that comment, if it had been meant literally, have to do with the WF board. BT is the driving force behind these shows and should be held the most accountable when something misfires. Somebody has to point out this stuff so he or whoever can learn and possibly fix the problem. Do I smell an attempt to protect exclusive interview and content privileges. Yep, although no one will ever publically admit it.


(It seems to please you to imagine that I am obsessed with you. On the contrary, until this exchange I hadn't given you two seconds of thought in the last few months.)

Which translates to I seem to have gotten under your skin. Few months, eh, hmmm....that seems to be a wee bit of an exaggeration, try a few weeks, Professor. War World part 2 time frame here.


Yes, it is your right to dismiss anything and anyone who disagrees with you. It is also your right to drool and pick your nose in public

Quite possibly the most ridiculous and immature analogy I've come across in some time. Apples and oranges, Professor.


Anyway, it's funny how you set yourself up as a paragon of honesty because you dogmatically and inflexibly oppose anyone who disagrees with your opinion of JL, while at the same time accusing those who oppose your opinion of being intellectually dishonesty and of "sugarcoating."

Hey, I just call 'em like I see 'em....Professor. I don't think anyone is intellectually dishonest if they like the show and I don't. I see it through different eyes than they do. Little things, that some people may not even notice, I do and they are a big deal to me, given the attention to detail and history of past Animated universe programs. Why should I be flexible in my convictions if I perceive them as truth? Like I said, if the show changes for the better(for me), well I'll change. Can't ask for much more than that.

[The Old Maid]

Girls, girls! Must we send you to your rooms? :eek:

Certainly is a lot of noise over a Superfriends tribute.

[Heehaw]

My point exactly, and I agree with you. Because of the stupidity of the subject matter and the tone I was forced to take, this discussion is terminated....at least from my end. The Great Circle is starting up and that leads to nowhere.

Hopefully, this has been some entertainment for somebody besides me.

<Takes a bow>

[Nightwing]

Whatever the case may be, I'm sure we don't want anything said here to be raised into something we'll regret. As far as strict opinions go, I find strong points I agree with from both Heehaw and Maxie, but if the discussion doesn't yet want to end, then let's try and focus more on the points at hand instead of whatever squables might be coming up.

Frankly I'm not that fond of Critters, but I don't neccessarily hate it. My philosophy is, there have been WAY better episodes, but if it's on I'll watch it (of course, I coined that philosophy of mine back when channels actually PLAYED BTAS and TNBSA, so the phrase made SENSE! :p).

And even though I agree a large amount of analyzing went into such a small space, I always admire any opinon that likes to go beyond all borders of ideology, even for simpler topics. :)

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Heehaw
To overanalyze it is to elevate it which it shouldn't be.


"It shouldn't be elevated." That was the entire thrust of your claim. No argument or engagement with the substance of my remarks. A simple, curt dismissal. I've wasted my time and the time of everyone else. Because it shouldn't be elevated. No one who thinks differently from you about the subject should be listened to. Because it shouldn't be elevated. There is no question or doubt about its (lack of) quality. Indeed, it is well-nigh a moral claim. It shouldn't be elevated.

Well, that's a pity. Because the purpose of these boards is to offer insight and argument, to reflect on what others say and (perhaps) offer them food for reflection. Necessarily, this means treating not only them personally with respect, but treating what they say with respect. The point is to engage each other, and to engage each other's thoughts and arguments. Something you categorically refused to do.

Instead, you seem to think these are a sounding board for you simply to shout out what you think, and damn anybody who disagrees with you.


There's one like me, too, the one who cuts through the bologne and double talk and tells it like it is.

All I do is either provide information, agree or disagree, and most of the time, I give a reason why I disagree. It seems that most people can't handle my somewhat direct way when responding to certain subjects(mainly in the episode response areas of the JL board).

Hey, I just call 'em like I see 'em.

Out in the real world, I see through the BS that comes out of most people's mouths. I won't stand for it, and I will and do point it out when I perceive it.

Why should I be flexible in my convictions if I perceive them as truth?


Because the purpose of conversation is either entertainment -- having fun, which no one has when such as yourself are wandering around pissing on people -- or enlightenment. And to say that you will never be flexible in your convictions is to say that you are incapable of improvement. Well, you may think that you're perfect just the way you are, and have attained perfect knowledge. The rest of us have our doubts -- both about ourselves (which is why we talk and exchange views) and certainly about you.

What should you do when someone expresses an opinion that you don't share or find dubious? (This is addressed to all readers of these boards.) Well, you should hear the person out respectfully. You can ask them to expand upon their views, so that you understand them better. (Maybe they're not as crazy as they sound). You can give back your own reasons for thinking they are wrong, while not avowedly ruling out the possibility that it is you who are wrong. (If they need to keep an open mind, then so should you.) And if you finally don't have anything decent to say to them -- if you find the position or topic not worthwhile, or the people hopeless, then don't say anything.

You can't pretend it's not a two-way street. If you have the right to sneer that someone is "wrong" without giving reasons, then they have the right to sneer that you are wrong. If you have the right to sneer that people have stupid opinions, then they have the right to sneer that you are too. If you have the right to insist that you and only you have the correct insight into things and that everyone else is full of BS, then they have the right to do the same to you.

And if you have the right to impute dishonest and malicious motives to those who disagree with you, then they have the right to do the same to you. I have not given anything back (curt dismissals, vituperation, accusations of bias or discussions of ancient history) that you have not raised first. And at every step we have discovered that you detest the medicine you insist that others swallow.

With good reason. The medicine is detestable. That is why we don't let people dish it out. And however special you feel you are, you are not an exception to rule.



The dredging up, in the public, is a necessary evil to establish why this conversation is even taking place. I clearly stated that I was going off topic and that it was necessary. Your snide remarks, before any of this occured are a direct result of your feelings towards me because of past occurances within the private message area.


You feel persecuted. Why? Because you have done harmful things on the board. You feel I am biased against you. Why? Because I have punished you for it. Some people deserve to feel put upon. Why? Because they are guilty of offenses we take very seriously around here.



What in the heck are you talking about? I've always treated my fellow posters with the upmost respect. I've never read someone else's remarks and stated "you suck" or any variant of it.

I looked over a brief sampling of my past posts in the JL area and I never insulted or put down anyone's remarks.

This is your appraisal of people on the JL board:


People seem to like it(on this board, only, it seems. The rest of the world sees it for what it is)


If this is your idea of "utmost respect" then you are a sorry specimen indeed -- denigrating the intelligence and taste of the entire community. (For other, similar comments you made, see the thread linked below). And it is for such reasons you are not allowed on the JL Board anymore.

And if we are inquiring into the roots of personal vendettas, then let us look at this ancient slander:



Do I smell an attempt to protect exclusive interview and content privileges. Yep, although no one will ever publically admit it.


This is a revival of an old show tune of yours. You first sang it on [/B][/QUOTE]here on the JL board (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?postid=143532#post143532) (as part of another classy post denigrating the intelligence of people on the JL board). It's an easy tune to whistle, though not a pretty one: Moderators and administrators have said nice things about Timm's shows (Jim likes JL, and I just revised my opinion of "Critters.") Moderators and administrators have had interviews with Timm (Jim for a while now, and I recently since Jim's hiatus). Therefore, we must be sell-outs, sucking up to a source. It cannot be that we actually believe what we say. We are only trying to "protect" ourselves by keeping Timm happy.

I suppose this is yet another example of how you treat people here with the "utmost respect."

If this goes back into the past, then, it goes back to the spiteful and malicious way that you initially chose to treat us. If you had made such comments about another poster, you would have been instantly banned. On the contrary, we have been extraordinarily patient with you, a patience which you have interpreted as weakness and an opportunity for bullying.

I have dealt with this at length because you have publicly maligned our integrity and our motives. If anyone has a complaint with us and the way we run the boards, they can come to us privately, and we will deal with it privately and tastefully. That is what you and I did previously, and despite certain exchanges (which you have already alluded to, and most all of which consisted of vicious personal insults against Jim) we continued to tolerate your general presence. We never alluded to your banning from the JL board in public because we did not want to do you the indignity of announcing that you were no longer permitted there. And the contents of PMs -- especially between a poster and a mod -- are strictly confidential, and never to be alluded to in public. (I allude to them here only because you first did.)

But you insisted upon making this a public case, and upon presenting yourself as an aggrieved party. I must respond, for I cannot allow your misrepresentations to go unanswered. That is why I am making the case for your banning public. And that is why you are reading this as an "unregistered guest."

1. You have publicly attacked mods and administrators, and willfully tried to injure their reputations. That is an offense which calls for an immediate banning, and it was only because of our extraordinary patience that your earlier attacks did not get you instantly banned then.

2. You have alluded to and misrepresented the contents of private messages. That is another offense which merits an immediate banning. All PMs are confidential and must be kept so.

3. You have insulted and denigrated members of the WF boards. That is an offense that covers not only this thread, but earlier posts from the JL boards. It is apparent that you have neither the inclination nor the ability to control yourself.