Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Space Cadet Omoly
Jan 15, 2014

Yay




SlothfulCobra posted:

It feels like I hadn't heard Richard Horvitz in anything for a long time, but then both Invader Zim and Psychonauts got brought back at around the same time

Last I heard the dude was teaching at a college, so he gets by fine without voice acting checks.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

kefkafloyd
Jun 8, 2006

What really knocked me out
Was her cheap sunglasses

There's also the convention circuit.

SlothfulCobra
Mar 27, 2011

STOP BEING EVIL.


Space Cadet Omoly posted:

Last I heard the dude was teaching at a college, so he gets by fine without voice acting checks.

Oh I get that people often wind up getting out of whatever creative business sometimes, it's just odd when you take a look at the IMDB of somebody whose work you like and it just dries up.

Thompsons
Aug 28, 2008

Ask me about onklunk extraction.

It also feels like over the last decade or so there's been a huge shift away from "let's hire the usual stable of people who can voice like 8 different characters each" to "let's get individual VO's who only play one or maybe two characters tops."

Beachcomber
May 21, 2007

Another day in paradise.




Slippery Tilde

Thompsons posted:

It also feels like over the last decade or so there's been a huge shift away from "let's hire the usual stable of people who can voice like 8 different characters each" to "let's get individual VO's who only play one or maybe two characters tops."

Steven Universe does this, no?

Thompsons
Aug 28, 2008

Ask me about onklunk extraction.

If you want to go far back enough you could argue it really began with Batman: The Animated Series

SlothfulCobra
Mar 27, 2011

STOP BEING EVIL.


Somebody recently wrote a big paper on the problem of cartoon porn that I feel like this thread might find interesting.

https://medium.com/@brazyintheday/k...em-84592d9514fc

Thompsons posted:

If you want to go far back enough you could argue it really began with Batman: The Animated Series

It's probably more from just how things have pivoted towards more serious stories. It's easier for one person to do multiple characters when they're able to do wacky exaggerated voices rather than having to seriously act through a variety of complex emotions.

Like the much more wacky OK KO has IanJ doing two main characters and a common recurring character.

Beachcomber
May 21, 2007

Another day in paradise.




Slippery Tilde

SlothfulCobra posted:

Somebody recently wrote a big paper on the problem of cartoon porn that I feel like this thread might find interesting.

https://medium.com/@brazyintheday/k...em-84592d9514fc

Maybe children shouldn't be using the internet unsupervised. If we're lucky enough to get a kid, we'll definitely install a keylogger and some kind of browser with undeletable history and no incognito.

Rand Brittain
Mar 24, 2013

"Go on until you're stopped."

This is an important topic but that article is daaaaaangerously bad.

Android Blues
Nov 22, 2008



I feel like it has some really good examples (Kill La Kill is creepy and awful and definitely does sexualise young girls), but then its criticism of Steven Universe for being too "suggestive" thanks to some of the subtext around fusion and the fact that characters sometimes flirt with one another is really overreaching, and makes the whole thing come off a bit moral panic-y.

Also - the repeated suggestion that (textually adult) characters like Ruby, Sapphire and Peridot are equivalent to children because they're small, and therefore scenes where they have romantic tension with other people are too suggestive for kids. That just comes off as really dubious to me, especially since those same scenes are such an important part of the show's groundbreaking record on LGBT representation.

asecondduck
Feb 18, 2011

by Nyc_Tattoo


I never saw the Rubys (Rubies?) as children, I've always assumed they're, like, the gem equivalent of midglittle people.

Android Blues
Nov 22, 2008



Yeah, the idea that the married couple who predate human civilisation are little kids because they're short is a huge overreach. Same with Peridot.

That said, there are some good points in the article, specifically about Studio Yotta associating with creeps. I just think it paints with too wide a brush, and kind of trips over its own feet in the process. I also don't think Rebecca Sugar's weird fanart is really equivalent to porn artists who are pumping out images of cartoon kids for people to masturbate to - I never got that vibe from her old stuff. It always felt like it was meant to be artistic and absurd, rather than a consumable piece of pornography.

Macaluso
Sep 23, 2005

I HATE THAT HEDGEHOG, BROTHER!


I think the only Gem that outright reads as a kid is Aquamarine. Which feels pretty intentional since she's very much Verruca Salt in Gem form. I think saying Peridot "Looks and acts like a child" is pretty ridiculous just because she's short and throws tantrums. I work in a retail job. Do you know how many grown rear end adults I encounter who THROW TANTRUMS? More than the children, y'all

Hemingway To Go!
Nov 10, 2008

im stupider then dog shit, i dont give a shit, and i dont give a fuck, and i will never shut the fuck up, and i'll always Respect my enemys.
- ernest hemingway


Not going to read the article because I want my medium newsletter to not recommend related articles, but it burns my rear end when people bring up poo poo Rebecca Sugar drew as a teenager. No one does that poo poo for male artists or unprogressive artists, while I've seen chuds bring it up to show her "degeneracy"

Fan art and fic is kind of beside the question of analyzing what's published anyway. Too much is made and anyone including kids can make it.

SlothfulCobra
Mar 27, 2011

STOP BEING EVIL.


Honestly, I never thought much about the short gems, the most uncomfortable I ever got about Steven Universe was back when every fusing was shown as a highly sexualized event and then the Stevonnie episode happened and all throughout the episode everybody sure is sexually attracted to these two 12-year-olds in a trenchcoat.

You're obviously not going to stop all porn artists, but it's a subject worth talking about. The world could use a little less porn art of underaged characters, or at least for people not to be making money off of it.

readingatwork
Jan 8, 2009

Hello Fatty!




Fun Shoe

Thereís some good questions buried in there but yeah, the article is reactionary trash that groups a lot of wildly different things together under the banner of child porn regardless of context or creator intent. Iím sorry but Ruby and Saphire are just not Rebecca Sugar doing the 10000 year old sexy anime grade schooler thing and to imply such is loving infuriating.

Nephthys
Mar 27, 2010


I was surprised at how knowledgeable the article was about several "big-name" porn artists. It was a well-researched article and its a topic that I think really should be talked about more, especially in the current digital age. The pervasiveness and accessibility of porn in fandoms of shows targeting children really is concerning and a complex issue. And with sex being such a large part of the psyche, I really do think we should be talking more about why people seem so obsessed with sexualising stuff from their childhood or intended for younger ages.

It definitely stumbles a bit (I can't see them actually mention KlK, it just seems to comment that its 'questionable' for SU to have had a Trigger artist guest-animate one of the more beautiful moments of the show, which is dumb) but overall its in the right place.

SlothfulCobra posted:

Honestly, I never thought much about the short gems, the most uncomfortable I ever got about Steven Universe was back when every fusing was shown as a highly sexualized event and then the Stevonnie episode happened and all throughout the episode everybody sure is sexually attracted to these two 12-year-olds in a trenchcoat.

Well that was partially supposed to be uncomfortable. I took the episode as a metaphor for someone going through puberty and suddenly having to deal with people treating them in a sexually-charged way that they aren't really equipped to handle. Stevonnie doesn't even realise Lars and Sadie had the hots for them, they were just happy to get free donuts. They know whats happening with Kevin though.

The episode isn't exactly risque and its an important thing to prepare kids for imo.

Xelkelvos
Dec 19, 2012


It's definitely a fairly well researched piece, but it does ring a bit too much like moral panic. Artists art. Drawings of subjects in erotic poses or actions are as old as time. Fictional ones at that. What changed is that the original intent of the fictional characters is now "for children" so the adulteration (so to speak) by others (or even the creators themselves) into situations that might be considered too extreme for children takes on a different context. What I do think needs to be considered is how children are internalizing these things and if it's in a healthy way. Just randomly stumbling onto porn of a cartoon character certainly isn't healthy, but so is accidentally stumbling onto porn in general

ninjewtsu
Oct 9, 2012



Hemingway To Go! posted:

Not going to read the article because I want my medium newsletter to not recommend related articles, but it burns my rear end when people bring up poo poo Rebecca Sugar drew as a teenager. No one does that poo poo for male artists or unprogressive artists, while I've seen chuds bring it up to show her "degeneracy"

Fan art and fic is kind of beside the question of analyzing what's published anyway. Too much is made and anyone including kids can make it.

Tbf the article absolutely brings up the poo poo Male artists made previous to their more official work, "it's kinda weird that people who became popular making porn of children's cartoons are jumping straight from that over to making children's cartoons" is one of the article's main points

IShallRiseAgain
Sep 12, 2008

Well ain't that precious?



ninjewtsu posted:

Tbf the article absolutely brings up the poo poo Male artists made previous to their more official work, "it's kinda weird that people who became popular making porn of children's cartoons are jumping straight from that over to making children's cartoons" is one of the article's main points

Male artists? lol, somebody hasn't heard what Rebecca Sugar used to draw.

Bongo Bill
Jan 17, 2012

From my point of view, the Jedi are evil. But what really is... evil?

All artists are horny.

ninjewtsu
Oct 9, 2012



I don't understand what you're talking about

Rebecca sugar drew ed edd n eddy characters having sex (the article puts some kind of artsy spin on it that I haven't really heard before). The poster I was responding to was upset that rebecca sugar gets dragged through the mud for drawing cartoon porn as a teenager, but Male artists in similar positions never do. I responded that that article specifically brings up the way that many professional, frequently Male cartoon artists got their start drawing cartoon porn before being hired on to make the actual cartoons themselves, and is in fact the context in which rebecca sugar was brought up and is a major theme of the article.

What am I missing here? What other thing has rebecca sugar drawn that changes the context of what I've said?

IShallRiseAgain
Sep 12, 2008

Well ain't that precious?



I just skimmed the thread. Also, most people's reaction to Rebecca Sugar stuff is that its funny. Its not exactly news that artists draw porn. Basically every artist draws porn.

readingatwork
Jan 8, 2009

Hello Fatty!




Fun Shoe

Yeah Iím now questioning how ďwell researchedĒ this article is. While skimming it I noticed this bit:

quote:

According to some experts, the potential dangers of children being exposed to porn include depression, social anxiety and self-harm.

The underlined part leads not to a study but to a blog post here:

https://psychcentral.com/blog/growi...---------------


This seems to be the passage the writer got this from:

quote:

According to Victor Cline, Ph.D., when children are exposed to pornography, arousal is imprinted via epinephrine and can be challenging to obliterate.2 In the case of this now tween-aged girl, she finds it compelling and wants to learn more. Her parents and therapy team are working together to foster age appropriate curiosity and warning of the dangers. These include:

Addiction
Depression
Social anxiety
Pre-mature sexual interactions with peers
Grooming by adults for sexual interaction
Confusion about healthy expression of sexuality
Putting oneself in precarious situations
Sexual assault
Ruining of reputation by posting revealing photos of oneself on social media or sexting
Isolation from peers whose parents may feel the child is an unsavory influence
Doing harm to others
Self-injury
Suicidal ideation and/or attempts
Desire for increased stimulation
Other high-risk behaviors

This is purely anecdotal and no studies are cited. I buy that a couple of these points are plausible but the inclusion of things like harming others and suicidal ideation seem pretty extreme for casual pornography viewing and make me call the whole article into question. I just donít buy the idea that just looking at people loving can make you a suicidal sex maniac and the article offers no real proof to back it up.

Also no, the study that blog post linked doesnít back up their point either:

quote:

Abstract

We examined exposure to Internet pornography before the age of 18, as reported by college students (n 􏰀 563), via an online survey. Ninety-three percent of boys and 62% of girls were exposed to online pornography dur- ing adolescence. Exposure prior to age 13 was relatively uncommon. Boys were more likely to be exposed at an earlier age, to see more images, to see more extreme images (e.g., rape, child pornography), and to view pornography more often, while girls reported more involuntary exposure. If participants in this study are typ- ical of young people, exposure to pornography on the Internet can be described as a normative experience, and more study of its impact is clearly warranted.

This is a 3 page online survey that looks at age of exposure and initial reactions. It doesnít actually establish any sort of causation with other negative behaviors.

Iím tempted to do a deep dive and really dig into the articleís sources... but on the other hand the subject matter is gross and I really donít want to. Maybe if Iím bored and have nothing better to do tomorrow.


Disclaimer: I am not defending showing children porn or child pornography. Both of those things can gently caress right off. My concern is that this is a poorly researched article that may me coming from a much more regressive place than the author is letting on. Hyperbolic claims and poor research are big red flags in this respect.

DoctorWhat
Nov 18, 2011

Someone call the Chancellery Guard. Commander Maxil's out of uniform. AGAIN.

I agree that artists creating porn of fictional children are uncomfortably buddy-buddy with staff on kids' cartoons. I don't agree with - in fact, I'm pretty offended by - the assertion that neuroatypical people are intrinsically too childlike and innocent to explore sex and relationships. I'm an autistic adult and I'm fully capable of informed, consensual sexual activity.

Xelkelvos
Dec 19, 2012


DoctorWhat posted:

I agree that artists creating porn of fictional children are uncomfortably buddy-buddy with staff on kids' cartoons. I don't agree with - in fact, I'm pretty offended by - the assertion that neuroatypical people are intrinsically too childlike and innocent to explore sex and relationships. I'm an autistic adult and I'm fully capable of informed, consensual sexual activity.

One of the rubs is that there's a lot of crossover between people who draw for kids' cartoons and people who create porn of kids' cartoons. In a number of cases, it's how they basically became known since the more popular artists basically honed their skills doing that and likely shared the same artist networks.

Rand Brittain
Mar 24, 2013

"Go on until you're stopped."

Yeah, another thing about this article is that it seems to put all cartoon pornography down to 4chan ideology, rather than the idea that somebody might actually want to have sex with a candy-colored pony.

Evidence suggests that it is not so.

Ghost Leviathan
Mar 2, 2017

Exploration is ill-advised




And of course it's a show with groundbreaking LGBT representation that's being targeted first. Moral panics are never on your side.

Larryb
Oct 5, 2010



Here's a new trailer for the upcoming Netflix Rocko movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Now4KeAiys

Macrame_God
Sep 1, 2005

The stairs lead down in both directions.



Also, on the subject of Netflix and trailers, here's the one for Twelve Forever (which we all somehow missed despite being uploaded over a week ago).

https://youtu.be/27QTnLN3D5g

Ruflux
Jun 16, 2012



Macrame_God posted:

Also, on the subject of Netflix and trailers, here's the one for Twelve Forever (which we all somehow missed despite being uploaded over a week ago).

https://youtu.be/27QTnLN3D5g

That's what tends to happen when shows get quietly dumped with no hype from the crew or anyone so the network/distributor can wash their hands of the whole mess.

Macrame_God
Sep 1, 2005

The stairs lead down in both directions.



Ruflux posted:

That's what tends to happen when shows get quietly dumped with no hype from the crew or anyone so the network/distributor can wash their hands of the whole mess.

When word got out that the season had ended production, I remember hearing rumors swirling around that the studio that made it closed up shop immediately afterwards and almost everyone involved left to go work on other shows. Rumor has it that Julia Vickerman was a massive pain in the rear end to work for, but whenever I start looking in to those rumors I get redirected to something someone posted on 4chan and I don't view the website that gave us QAnon as a reliable source of information so who knows what happened.

Also, according to that trailer, the show drops today so if anyone wants to fill me in on whether or not it's any good, be my guest.

Ruflux
Jun 16, 2012



Macrame_God posted:

When word got out that the season had ended production, I remember hearing rumors swirling around that the studio that made it closed up shop immediately afterwards and almost everyone involved left to go work on other shows. Rumor has it that Julia Vickerman was a massive pain in the rear end to work for, but whenever I start looking in to those rumors I get redirected to something someone posted on 4chan and I don't view the website that gave us QAnon as a reliable source of information so who knows what happened.

Also, according to that trailer, the show drops today so if anyone wants to fill me in on whether or not it's any good, be my guest.

Current rumors claim personal misconduct from Vickerman being the reason the show was quickly wrapped up and dumped. She was apparently replaced and there are court documents floating around showing the production company was sued over mishandling the situation, so the outlook definitely doesnít look good, /co/ rumors or not.

It would certainly explain how quiet everyone involved has been on social media, except for the apparent replacement showrunner. Either way a second seasonís definitely off the table. Earlier rumors suggested that a very complicated set of circumstances involving contractual obligations were the reason Netflix begrudgingly picked up the show to begin with.

Ruflux fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Jul 29, 2019

PhazonLink
Jul 17, 2010


i think its pilot got posted before, my two cents was it was 90s as ef.

Applewhite
Aug 16, 2014

IN THE GRIM BARKNESS
OF THE FUTURE
THERE ARE ONLY DOGS


Nap Ghost

Beachcomber posted:

Maybe children shouldn't be using the internet unsupervised. If we're lucky enough to get a kid, we'll definitely install a keylogger and some kind of browser with undeletable history and no incognito.

I donít let my kids use the internet at all period. I was thirteen before I logged on to the internet for the first time.

The internet is a bad place for kids for a million reasons besides porn.

poo poo, itís a bad place for adults more often than not.

Article is totally right about this poo poo with underage characters in sexual situations being completely out of hand, but though yeah I agree it pushes into ďthe sky is fallingĒ territory a little.

Applewhite
Aug 16, 2014

IN THE GRIM BARKNESS
OF THE FUTURE
THERE ARE ONLY DOGS


Nap Ghost

So I started watching Scooby Doo and Guess Who.

While I admire their commitment to recreating the aesthetic of the original show, I think they took it too far, particularly with the voice acting. I can only picture the director telling the cast ďno! More stilted! More wooden! I want the audience to hear the recording booth around you!Ē
Itís a shame because I know from the VAsí other work how talented they are.

Iím also not sure who exactly benefits from the 70ís throwback animation. Kids wonít get the joke and adults will get bored.

Maybe I was just spoiled by Mystery Incorporated.

Bongo Bill
Jan 17, 2012

From my point of view, the Jedi are evil. But what really is... evil?

Presumably they're using the 70s throwback animation for the same reason they used it in the 70s: it's cheap.

ThermoPhysical
Dec 26, 2007





Scooby-Doo and Guess Who? looks like it's meant to be made as cheaply as possible. All of the voice actors that aren't the guest stars are the same for every episode. This is probably to afford the celebrities though.

mateo360
Mar 20, 2012

TOO MANY PEOPLE MERLOCK!
ONLY ONE DIJON!


ThermoPhysical posted:

All of the voice actors that aren't the guest stars are the same for every episode.

That's generally how a main cast works? I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here. Unless you mean all the secondary characters are voiced by the same one or two people.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ThermoPhysical
Dec 26, 2007





mateo360 posted:

That's generally how a main cast works? I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here. Unless you mean all the secondary characters are voiced by the same one or two people.

The latter, I meant, yeah.

I've seen all the episodes and basically every character that's not the main cast or the guest star is just the same one or two people over and over. Even the guest star sometimes.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply