We've got a Top 5 Worst for TV

[starlac]

Finally a top (or should that be bottom) 5 for the worst that TV animation has to offer. Nice to see Totally Spies! there and Dragon Ball Z and that, but 101 Dalmations? Still as with all things this is subject to change.

Keep the reviews coming... I know I've got more TV series to add.

EDIT: It was Thalia's review for Dragon Ball Z that tipped the scales.

[lupercal]

Query: the bottom 5's have a maximum cut-off point (2.0 I think). Do the 'best of' lists also have a minimum cutoff point? I'm assuming they do, otherwise you could end up with a show on both lists. But this is what is probably holding up bottom five lists, and Athena was noting recently that TV series tend not to get as many low votes as feature films.

I was wondering about this, and wondered whether people had the same standards for feature films as they do for everything else. For example, what does a short film like 'Boundin' have to do to get 4 stars, by comparison to a feature film? Where does a TV series or a DTV come in that spectrum? Do you apply exactly the same standards? I don't see how you can between, say, a feature and a theatrical short. But what about between a feature and a DTV? I think I'm slightly inclined to lower the threshold for DTVs. I take it for granted that a DTV's quality is a relative thing, and that I might give 3.0 to a DTV which I might only give 2.5 to if it were a feature. IOW it's a 3.0 as far as DTV's go.

Having said that, I can't think of an example of a film which I would change the rating of if it were a feature. Maybe 'Mulan II'. I think I may have given that a 3.0, but I can't see myself giving it more than 2.5 if it were a feature.

If this holds true it may help explain why we haven't got a bottom five for shorts yet. Nobody wants to give a short less than 2.0. Also we may have a tendency to list all the classic shorts first, and no lousy ones.

Loop

[MonkeyFunk]

There's also a top 5 for part live-action, and since Cool world's on it... no, there doesn't seem to be a cut-off point

[lupercal]

Yeah, Space Jam is also below 2 stars.

[starlac]

I had to think hard about this…

I will admit, I have different expectations of a feature film to a DTV, TV series etc, and that has a bearing on the final score. In most cases I look on at other profiles that it shares its category with and how it bears up to them in relation.

However reviews are subjective things and relative differences aren’t all I look for. In some cases it’s a case of the question: would I care to see this again? if so how often? Would I buy it if I haven’t got it already?

IMO the way a profile has been released kind of advertises how it should be viewed. I have little time for issues like lack of budget, since quite a few films made on low capitals have managed to be highly entertaining or poignant. Contrariwise, a massive budget doesn’t necessitate a good film and I’ve seen a few so-called epics that feel kind of soulless. This is, of course, is true of all entertainment, animated or otherwise.

And that’s the most predominate aspect to me, does the film, etc, have a strong centre. I mean sure, animation and sound are qualities that I look at; but they’ve always taken second stage to the stories being told.

My second biggest concern is the animation itself. Animation is a strange science and too many films seem to lack the ability to utilize strong character animation, or even just strong poses. This is a problem that is very predominate in a lot of TV animation and anime, with characters who tend to move in standardised ways. Where this is a minor point for a lot of the time, however strong characterisation combined with a good story (or, in the case of some theatrical shorts: the use and portrayal of gags, etc) is the only way a profile is going to have a chance of getting a four out of me.

In essence the qualities I look for when reviewing are: Soul, Story, Characterisation. There made be other deciding factors but these are the main three.

Lastly, I try not to let nostalgia blind me to a show's faults, if I'm honest, one of my favourite childhood shows was He-Man, which I gave 1 star.

I think a “short film” would have to be pretty disastrous to get a low score. In some ways, they are the hardest to mark, as they can exist in a vacuum like state much more predominately than that of any other category. Most of this has to do with the category probably having the widest range of styles and techniques relative to any of the others.

[athena]

Do the 'best of' lists also have a minimum cutoff point?
I'm pretty sure they do--probably 2 stars or greater. I didn't like the idea of a film rated 'good' winding up on the top 5 worst list just by virtue of the fact that there were so few reviews... and vice versa.

*edit: CRAP... I was certain there was... I'll fix this right now...


Also we may have a tendency to list all the classic shorts first, and no lousy ones.
Maybe it's because shorts are independent and the likelihood of a bad short actually making it into a festival... which is where I usually see shorts... isn't as high... by contrast, studios seem to put their money behind any old crap these days... :irked:

[lupercal]

I meant theatrical shorts as well... but the problem there I suppose is that a bad theatrical short from 50 years ago is hardly likely to be remembered today. But if required, I can find some. I have a whole DVD of utterly awful theatrical shorts from the late 40's. There were plenty of excruiatingly awful shorts back ten. Finding screengrabs might be hard, though. And there's the added problem that we would probably have to wait till 2016 to find 3 people who had actually seen them.

One of my lowest rated shorts would be the rollicking anti-smoking cartoon from the American cancer council in about 1960. Boy was that a hoot.

Loop

[MonkeyFunk]

For the record here's BCDB's bottom 10, which has a few theatrical shorts:

Rating # Votes Cartoon
1.00 5 Mikey Impossible
1.00 5 The Switch
1.95 17 Shark Tale
2.05 9 Chicken Little
2.17 4 Frosty Returns
2.60 5 Just Plane Beep
2.67 3 Road To Andalay
2.75 4 Pre-Hysterical Hare
2.75 4 Waking Life
2.80 5 Highway Runnery

[starlac]

I meant theatrical shorts as well... but the problem there I suppose is that a bad theatrical short from 50 years ago is hardly likely to be remembered today.

I gave Wabbit Twouble 1.5 stars, so I'm not above giving theatrical shorts low scores (I don't like that short at all). Of course there were terrible shorts (and films) made throughout animations history, but like lupercal said, how many people would know them and be able to review them?

[athena]

Ouch... I think you guys have a vendetta against the Smurfs... while I don't think they're particularly great, I don't know if they should be topping our Top 5 Worst... :shrug: