Join

We're moving Forums to the Community pages. Click here for more information and updates.

Avatar: The Last Airbender Forums

Nickelodeon (ended 2008)

Bad Criticism

  • « previous
  •  | 
  • next »
  • Avatar of SonicHeroes123

    SonicHeroes123

    [1]Oct 19, 2006
    • member since: 01/10/04
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 66

    Look at what I found on Wikipedia.?? "Although the show has been very popular amongst very young children, many television critics have been very harsh with the show citing unlikable characters, poor animation and a convoluted cliched plot." What do you think?

    Edited on 10/19/2006 6:40am
    Edited 2 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of doug4ever

    doug4ever

    [2]Oct 19, 2006
    • member since: 08/16/06
    • level: 10
    • rank: Holy Level 10!
    • posts: 575
    Those b@stards.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of SonicHeroes123

    SonicHeroes123

    [3]Oct 19, 2006
    • member since: 01/10/04
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 66
    I think it was vandalism. I got rid of that quote.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Keoja

    Keoja

    [4]Oct 19, 2006
    • member since: 07/02/06
    • level: 1
    • rank: Weatherman
    • posts: 74

    You have to remeber thats Wikipedia the place where you can post anything and pass it for fact. In fact if you want you could edit that any one can edit wikipedia to say exactly what they want whether it be trash about a show they dont like or praising reviews for a sucktastical?? show (insert show here).

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of JonathonWolf

    JonathonWolf

    [5]Oct 19, 2006
    • member since: 07/02/03
    • level: 10
    • rank: Holy Level 10!
    • posts: 741
    Keoja wrote:

    You have to remeber thats Wikipedia the place where you can post anything and pass it for fact. In fact if you want you could edit that any one can edit wikipedia to say exactly what they want whether it be trash about a show they dont like or praising reviews for a sucktastical show (insert show here).


    Or completely wrong information. A person could go in and say that Aang is the grandson of Roku and is trying to take over the throne of the Fire Nation. Or that the Kyoshi Warriors are a sect of assassins. Or even submitting opinion as fact. Someone could go in and say that a majority of fans support the romantic progression between Sokka and Suki. That may be a factually true statement, but we can't know for certain without conducting a fair survey.

    And yet, wikipedia is still a very reliable source. For actual reviews, it would have to be referenced from an official article for me to give any credence to it.?? Even then, I take it with a grain of salt.?? I've seen newspaper reviews for childrens movies where the review said the movie was "boring and derivative, but the kids in the audience enjoyed it."?? Well, yes, a children's movie isn't going to be intellectually stimulating to someone that probably has grandkids older than the target audience.?? If I'm not mistaken, Spongebob's largest demographic was actually college age viewers even though it is targeted to boys age 6 to 10.?? It's nice to see a cartoon that doesn't assume their audience is incapable of understanding complex concepts.?? You'd be surprised what a young child is able to understand if you explain honestly, and what they can misunderstand when you try to sugarcoat.
    Edited on 10/19/2006 7:46am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of mistaria

    mistaria

    [6]Oct 19, 2006
    • member since: 10/15/06
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 57
    I definitely agree with JonathonWolf here.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Eman5805

    Eman5805

    [7]Oct 19, 2006
    • member since: 11/05/04
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 5,943
    And if you want further proof of how anyone can say anything about anything...check out what I just saw on the article about Long Feng "In Appa's Lost Days, it is revealed that he captured Appa so he could keep Aang from finding him and that he is an Earthbender. To capture Appa with one move shows his Earthbending is on par with Toph" I'm deleting the first part and gonna edit the second one...
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of doug4ever

    doug4ever

    [8]Oct 19, 2006
    • member since: 08/16/06
    • level: 10
    • rank: Holy Level 10!
    • posts: 575
    how on earth can this show have a critism
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of UGamer08

    UGamer08

    [9]Oct 19, 2006
    • member since: 09/14/05
    • level: 23
    • rank: Close Talker
    • posts: 2,371
    JonathonWolf wrote:
    Keoja wrote:

    You have to remeber thats Wikipedia the place where you can post anything and pass it for fact. In fact if you want you could edit that any one can edit wikipedia to say exactly what they want whether it be trash about a show they dont like or praising reviews for a sucktastical show (insert show here).


    Or completely wrong information. A person could go in and say that Aang is the grandson of Roku and is trying to take over the throne of the Fire Nation. Or that the Kyoshi Warriors are a sect of assassins. Or even submitting opinion as fact. Someone could go in and say that a majority of fans support the romantic progression between Sokka and Suki. That may be a factually true statement, but we can't know for certain without conducting a fair survey.

    And yet, wikipedia is still a very reliable source. For actual reviews, it would have to be referenced from an official article for me to give any credence to it.?? Even then, I take it with a grain of salt.?? I've seen newspaper reviews for childrens movies where the review said the movie was "boring and derivative, but the kids in the audience enjoyed it."?? Well, yes, a children's movie isn't going to be intellectually stimulating to someone that probably has grandkids older than the target audience.?? If I'm not mistaken, Spongebob's largest demographic was actually college age viewers even though it is targeted to boys age 6 to 10.?? It's nice to see a cartoon that doesn't assume their audience is incapable of understanding complex concepts.?? You'd be surprised what a young child is able to understand if you explain honestly, and what they can misunderstand when you try to sugarcoat.

    Actually that's happened Aang Roku thing has happened before. In one instance, some guy deleted the entire wikipedia section and replaced it with ???Avatar sucks ass??? or was it balls? Seriously those vandals or whatever the hell you call em are really, dedicated. Just go to, well I can???t remember the exact link thingie, but if you click around, you???ll find a whole mess of ???cases.??? Seriously these guys, eh. Luckily the Avatar guys in charge there are more alert than some of the editors here. Those guys catch in a minute. Just glad I never really got involved with that place.

    ??

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of UGamer08

    UGamer08

    [11]Oct 19, 2006
    • member since: 09/14/05
    • level: 23
    • rank: Close Talker
    • posts: 2,371
    Was it "balls" or "ass?" Just can't seem to get it. I'm leaning towards "ass" but you'know still there.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of dumbTVnut

    dumbTVnut

    [12]Oct 19, 2006
    • member since: 12/21/05
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 3,445
    wikipedia is not a source, references on wikipedia are usually a source. It very simple: any claim on wikipedia that can be trusted must be referenced, the reference (if it is a web link) you can click on and determine if it is the primary source and the quility of the source. Not that you can???t use a secondary source (a source that sources something) but wikipedia is not static like most sources, when someone goes to wikipeida to verify your reference, there is a good chance that that claim might not be there anymore, it might have been changed or replace with a picture of a human penis To save you and them the embarrassment just reference the original source rather then wikipedia.
    Edited on 10/19/2006 9:15am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of arthuroys

    arthuroys

    [13]Oct 19, 2006
    • member since: 10/01/06
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 114
    I admit that I had accidentally vandalized the Harry Potter section of Wikipedia once.?? I was trying to "correct" the name of the movie from "philosopher's stone" to "sorcerer's stone" (i didn't know that the former was the european name for it) and i accidentally deleted the whole thing.?? I couldn't figure out how to restore it, so i just ran.??

    happy hunting.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of pooldude256

    pooldude256

    [14]Oct 21, 2006
    • member since: 06/19/05
    • level: 38
    • rank: Squarepants
    • posts: 4,886
    SonicHeroes123 wrote:

    Look at what I found on Wikipedia. "Although the show has been very popular amongst very young children, many television critics have been very harsh with the show citing unlikable characters, poor animation and a convoluted cliched plot." What do you think?



    lol...this can't be taken seriously, like everyone else is saying. Dude, this is the exacr OPPOSITE of what critics think. I have seen many writers (most notably Aaron Bynum of Animation Insider) praise Avatar for it's stunning animation, great and unique characters and one-of-a-kind plot and storylines. Someone just vandalized the page is all, happens all the time on Wiki. And that's why it can't be taken seriously, some people are idiots and edit it just to be funny or cool or whatever...
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of zachman9393

    zachman9393

    [15]Oct 22, 2006
    • member since: 09/19/06
    • level: 15
    • rank: Ginsu Knife
    • posts: 491
    JonathonWolf wrote:
    Keoja wrote:

    You have to remeber thats Wikipedia the place where you can post anything and pass it for fact. In fact if you want you could edit that any one can edit wikipedia to say exactly what they want whether it be trash about a show they dont like or praising reviews for a sucktastical show (insert show here).


    Or completely wrong information. A person could go in and say that Aang is the grandson of Roku and is trying to take over the throne of the Fire Nation. Or that the Kyoshi Warriors are a sect of assassins. Or even submitting opinion as fact. Someone could go in and say that a majority of fans support the romantic progression between Sokka and Suki. That may be a factually true statement, but we can't know for certain without conducting a fair survey.

    And yet, wikipedia is still a very reliable source. For actual reviews, it would have to be referenced from an official article for me to give any credence to it.?? Even then, I take it with a grain of salt.?? I've seen newspaper reviews for childrens movies where the review said the movie was "boring and derivative, but the kids in the audience enjoyed it."?? Well, yes, a children's movie isn't going to be intellectually stimulating to someone that probably has grandkids older than the target audience.?? If I'm not mistaken, Spongebob's largest demographic was actually college age viewers even though it is targeted to boys age 6 to 10.?? It's nice to see a cartoon that doesn't assume their audience is incapable of understanding complex concepts.?? You'd be surprised what a young child is able to understand if you explain honestly, and what they can misunderstand when you try to sugarcoat.
    Amen to that, and boo to people who vandalize Wiki, which would be an okay source if there were no vandals and people actually researched their info before posting it.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • « previous
  •  | 
  • next »
Shows | Movies | Web | People | News | Videos | Community
Listings | Photos | Forums | Closed Captioning | Rating Guidelines
CBS Entertainment About CBS Interactive | About TV.com | Contact Us | Jobs | Advertise
© 2016 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. TV Guide Digital Network | Privacy Policy | Ad Choice | Terms of Use