According to Mike Judge, this (10th) will be the final season of King of the Hill. King of the Hill is a milestone in animation. It is history's most successful reality-based animation series (if you overlook the character of Cotton, who had his feet grafted to his knees).
By reality-based, I mean animation that deals with fairly believable characters and circumstances with no magic, no talking animals, no sci-fi, and kids who usually behave like real kids instead of like wry, precocious Peanuts types.
(Other reality-based [more or less] animation projects include Barefoot Gen, Grave of the Fireflies, My Neighbors the Yamadas, assorted Ralph Bakshi movies, When the Wind Blows, The Triplettes of Belleville, Bob and Margaret, Wait Till Your Father Gets Home, Mission Hill, Baby Blues, Beavis and Butthead, and many mostly-independent shorts.)
any thoughts regarding King of the Hill?
favorite moments, episodes?
Should it stick around or should it go out while the writing is still fresh?
:D.:D.:D.:D...
They can save "King Of The Hill" but they can not save the Teenage Mutant Turtles, where is the justice.;)
The show returns this Sunday, January 28th, at 8:30pm, between The Simpsons and Family Guy.
episode info
If you enjoy Mike Judge's work - King of the Hill, Beavis & Butt-head, Office Space - then I recommend Idiocracy, now out on DVD.
I like this show!
Keep clear!
I'll hate to see it go. I enjoyed KotH a lot, especially since I live in Texas. It may not have been the most groundbreaking for it's animation but each season was consistently funny. I particularly like the episodes where Bobbie joins the bible camp/biblepolooza and the Alamo episode. Dale and Cotton were/are my favorite characters.
I remember when I first moved to Texas, probably the first or second season, the local newspaper had a contest to find the real Hank Hill and they found a guy that drove a red pickup, worked at a small fishing and camping store that sold propane, and he was an older, over weight Dallas Cowboys fan. It was a bit surreal to say the least.
All good things must come to an end.
T
I used to love king of the hill.I dont hate it now but im kinda tired of it for the past 5 years.I dont think the writing has gotten bad or anything but the concept only can last so long before you get bored of it.Its like bevis and butthead only it was enjoyable for a longer timespan.
The few times I watched it, it was good. I noticed that not following the show did not hurt my understanding of what was going on. That show was kind-of like watching fish in a fish bowl.
I always loved King of the Hill, but could never get anybody else to sit down and watch it. I love the fact that a show without the "rubber-band reality" that seems so important for animated sitcoms lasted as long as it did. I will truley miss all of the Arlignites, (or is that Arlinians) and their antics.
P.S. My favorite episodes would have to be the one where Hank is accused of renting the pornography and the episode where Dale gets a new job. Also the Kidney Boy episode is a great one.
One word: Thundercougarfalconbird
I'm gonna miss this show. At first I wasn't too fond of it, but it quickly grew on me. Bobby cracks me up. I'll never forget the one where Bobby is caught making out with Luanne's mannequin head!
I never really warmed up to it, but my family loves it. Besides, with nearly-constant reruns, is any show ever really gone anymore? Heck, I could have watched two solid hours of "Friends" last night without a lot of channel changing...
I never thought it quite worked as well as Beavis and Butthead. I found the design ugly, and didn't develop any fondness for the characters. I never made a point of watching it, but nevertheless, the odd time I did see it, it was always well written and enjoyable, and seemed to get a little better as time went on.
Sorry ant-eater. You say "I never thought it quite worked as well as Beavis and Butthead. I found the design ugly..."
Beavis and Butthead is not ugly?!?!?! That is FAR uglier than this ugly cartoon. I remember a friend who did work on Beavis and Butthead getting a revision on one of his poses: "Hand is not drawn anitomically correct". We all thought it was a joke, as NOTHING in that series was drawn anitomically correct, but... Nonetheless... It is FAR from pretty.
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
Beavis and Butthead had a crude but appealling style that worked perfectly for the subject matter. It balanced out the ugliness by being funny to look at. I have seen several imitations of this kind of thing, and while they always managed to look cheap and crude, they always fell short of the mark and just wound up plain ugly. I think Mike Judge was really channeling something when he hit on Beavis and Butthead. The look was an extension of the force of the idea.
King of the Hill is a very different kind of show. I don't think the Beavis and Butthead look would have worked for it, but I find the toned down tightened up style just winds up being ugly.
i reckon, i'll kinda miss King of the Hill. I like it, but it's never been a staple show of mine.
but one of my favorit episodes was the one where Hank's insurance policy was inactive. haha. and the other guys were hooked on deep frying everything.
i can tell you i won't miss Peggy one bit. such an annoying character.
Website http://dapper-dandy.com
Cartoon Syndicate project
http://cartoon-syndicate.com
I'll miss the show. It kind of flew under the radar to alot of aother animated sitcoms, but it is one of my favorites. The characters are awesome, and the writing is consistantly good. That's hard to do considering they didn't have anything 'unreal' to fall back on.
I'll miss it, but I'd rather see it end than continue after it's course.
-S
-S
http://www.suetheartist.com
I'll miss it. And I agree at first I didn't really like the look of it, but I came to really like the characters and wonder what was going on in their lives. I think that's a sign of a great sitcom. I'll miss Hank, Peggy, Bill, Dale, Boomhower, Bobby the Laos neighbors...What will they fill that slot with, probably trash.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
I agree, the look and style really bugged me at first... until I realized that it coincides perfectly with the show and it's subject matter. The characters are simple folk, living a pretty simple life, non of them are particularly attractive or flashy... so why should the style be any different? As soon as I had that perspective, I really started enjoying the show.
I had the same experience. The "look of it" had to grow on me after many viewings.
Here are some of my favorites:
episode 10
Keeping Up with Our Joneses
Hank, Peggy, and Boddy try to quit smoking
episode 13
How to Fire a RIfle without Really Trying
Bobby is a crack shot
episode 19
The Man Who Shot Cane Skretteburg
Hank and friends vs. teenagers at paintball
(with Green Day as the teenagers)
episode 24
Meet the Manger Babies
Luanne creates a Christian puppet show
episode 63
Bills are Made to be Broken
Bill makes a comeback in highschool football
episode 97
Ho Yeah!
Hank unwittingly becomes a pimp
(with Renee Zellweger as the "ho")
episode 98
The Exterminator
Dale gets a job firing office workers (shades of Office Space)
(with Lisa Kudrow as Dale's boss)
episode 133
The Texas Skilsaw Massacre
after Hank accidently cuts off Dale's thumb, he's assigned to anger management class
episode 149
The WItches of East Arlen
Bobby falls in with a coven of dweebs
(with Dave Cross as the head "witch")
episode 156
Livin' on Reds, Vitamin C, and Propane
Hank rents an 18-wheeler and takes the gang on a road trip
episode 170
The Redneck on Rainey Street
Kahn becomes a cracker
I'll always wonder how old Bobby will be before he stops wearing shorts. The writers deserve Kudos. And the artists that made these guys part of families for so long. Who could of thought of a character like Cotton. But you got love the little short spunky guy with no shins.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
I give the show credit for its writing, but I just could not stand the sight of it. Maybe I am the only one here who thinks this way, but I just found the designs so.... Mike Judge, and I cannot stand the work he does (artistically).
Anyhoo... I am happy that an animation series made it this long, and that it had gained such a popularity, but I personally will not miss it.
Cheers
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
Reality-based animation is an oxymoron that should never have anything to do with the industry. True animation should incorporate things that CAN'T be done in live action or any other medium. At least shows like The Triplettes of Belleville and Bob and Margaret had stylized character designs and stylized movements which made them visual spectacles, but King of the Hill never did that. EVERYTHING on that show could have been easily done in live action and judging by how stiff and boring the animation is it should have been. Worse yet, alot of the "jokes" told by some of the characters seemd forced, as though just the fact that they were talking in some manner of speech was funny enough and babbling on and on in that way made it funnier somehow. The only real reason this show went anywhere at all was because they borrowed writers and directors from the Simpsons. Without them this show would have been a forgotton mess. Mike Judge might have found Hank Hill hilarious but I certanly didn't.
All this makes King of the Hill one of the most pointless and uninteresting shows ever produced. I'm glad it's going. It should have been gone a looooooong time ago. :mad:
Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.
You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti
... sounds like just about every Looney Tunes character ever created. :rolleyes:
Oooooooooooooh, you HAD to go there. Everyone who knows me also knows that when talking with me you NEVER go there. Bu-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-ut, you went there. And the trip BACK from there will be much more painful. ;) Here goes:
The big difference here is that the Looney Tunes had absolutely innovative geniuses backing them up. They had Mel Blanc's amazing skill of acting giving their voices life, they had the very witty and clever writers most often Michael Maltese, Tedd Pierce, and Warren Foster making every line said a gem, and of course (probably most important of all) it was all brought together by the highly competant directorial skills of Tex Avery, Chuck Jones, Bob Clampett, Friz Freleng, Frank Tashlin, Robert McKimson, and Art Davis. All this along with Carl Stalling's music and Treg Brown's Oscar winning sound effects, make these cartoons the cartoons the cornerstone of the entire animation and even the entire entertainment industry. They not only perfected the principles and techniques of what makes good animation but also what makes good satire (something that Monty Python, SNL, and the Simpsons certainly are not ignorant of). Sure, the good people at Termite Terrace had influences of their own (Charlie Chaplain and the Marx Brothers just to name a few), but the adage is this: everything made before lead up to it and everything made afterwards came from it. That's the best way to describe how the Looney Tune shave influenced the culture.
NONE of the Looney Tunes were every just talking (as Foghorn Leghorn would say) just to hear their head roar. They were all delivered with impeccible timing with a verbosity noone has ever duplicated or surpassed since, again thanks to Mel Blanc who delived the voice and the directors who pieced it all together.
Now about King of the Hill. Yes, I said that many of the episodes had competant directors borrowed from the Simpsons. Sadly, things are different today though. Animation directors no longer have the freedom they did back in the classic days and no director EVER had as much freedom as the directors did at Looney Tunes. Therefore, any skill they have is usurped by endless producers and the show's creator who insists on having things look a certain way and sometimes with no artistic knowledge backing him up. Mike Judge and King of the Hill (as well as Beavis & Butthead) are examples of that. Despite the experienced directors at the helm, tey were all under the thumb of Mike Judge who made this show a live action wannabe thus affecting the bland look of the show. It is the frustration of the directors being torn between trying to do a good job and adhering to Judge's lifeless style that comes through makes this show hard to watch (for me anyway).
You may go now. :p
Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.
You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti
pompous and embarrassing
Do I detect a Queen Victoria complex?
ooooooooo, yes, I DID go there. oooooooooo. scary :rolleyes:
Well, thanks for your list of adjectives and Looney Tunes screen credits.
I have no problem if you despise Mike Judge's work; and this is no slight to Looney Tunes. It's merely a slight to the hypocrisy and close-minded elitism of your original arguments.
[list]
[*]Yes, King of the Hill has characters whose silly voices are a substantial part of the joke. The most successful characters in animation history have silly voices that are substantial parts of the joke, including two in your avatar.
[/list]
[list]
[*]Only exaggerated, rubbery characters constitute "real" animation? Give me a friggin' break.
[/list]You may go to hell now. :D
I never said that. Certainly rubbery animation is not the ONLY style out there. But, anyone who tries to copy realistic movements with animation, 2D or otherwise, is denying their work the rich and wonderful aspect that make animation so great. Ironically, using overstatement and/or understatement creates something that seems much more real than the copying of realism. King of the Hill does the latter and suffers artistly for it.
I'd comment on the "go to hell" remark, but I don't want this to degenerate into an online insult contest. So, I'll close by saying if you had to resort to that this early you dissapoint me. :o
Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.
You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti
oooooooooo! Everybody who knows me knows that you don't address me in that tone and get away with it! Prepare to meet thy doom! (Here, let me get my limited-edition light saber that I bought at Toys-R-Us.) vvvvrrroooom, zooooommm, wwwhhooozzzz, mmmrrrrrr, (other light saber sounds)
Your view of art is very limited.
That was obviously my parody of your original slight.
Take it the same way you meant me to take your pompous "you HAD to go there" and "you may go now" remarks.
Expect to be treated the same way you treat others.
No, King of the Hill isn't as "animated" as The Simpsons or Looney Tunes.
That is the whole point!
These are supposed to be mundane characters; and you don't have mundane characters bounce off walls.
You are obviously looking for a theatricality in all your cartoons. Some strive for believability instead.
[b]
I vanquish thee!!!!!
You mayeth go now, knave. [/b]
Nope! I ducked just in time. :p
What? Just because I don't like suckass King of the Hill you think my view of art is limited??? That's the most stupid, most assinine thing ever said on a message board ever. A professional architect knows the proper way to assemnble a building so that it won't collapse, a professional athlete knows what stretching exercises to do and when in order to perform at his best without cramping, and likewise a professional animator knows that in order to get the best results one must use the medium to its fullest potential and also knows that such a thing cannot happen when he simply tries to immitate live action.
Give me one good reason why King of the Hill should be animated as opposed to being shot in live action. What does the show gain by being animated?
Sure, mundane characters can be entertaining. The KotH cast certainly fits that bill. But then again so does Droopy and he hasn't been suppressed by someone's lack of imagination being left to wallow in monotony. Why? Because Tex Avery his creator knew how to use the animation medium. Whether the character was wacky (Screwy Squirrel) or barely mobile (Droopy) Tex knew to keep things cartoony because the fact that ANY PIECE OF ANIMATION THAT SIMPLY MIMICS LIVE ACTION LOOKS STIFF AND BORING AND DOESN'T WORK held as true back then as it does today and will continue to do so forever. Somehow, Mike Judge missed that lesson.
Never ever confuse banality with believeability. Too many people do nowadays and that's why so many things suck. In an interview, Chuck Jones said that in order for a cartoon character to be believable all an animator has to do is give him/her a sense of weight. Once that's achieved it's all gravy. That character can do the most impossible things and it would still be believable. They don't have to be shakled to the limits of mimicing live action. By ignoring this, KotH simply achieves banality. Ironically, Hank Hill and crew don't seem real as a result. They look more like garphitti art awkwardly moving accross the back of some kid's binder (although Beavis & Butthead are a more severe example of this).
Yeah......... maybe I shouldn't have responded to this post. You've clearly reverted back into childhood. I'm assuming your next response to this will be fart noises or something judging by your quick slide into a juvenile state throughout the course of this thread. If one of the mods gives you a cookie will that make it better? :p
Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.
You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti
Occasionally, it's fun to watch one of these flame wars, instead of being involved in it... :D
I'm glad others are also having fun.
So now you're admitting that King of the Hill is entertaining. Well, I guess we're done here because I AGREE COMPLETELY!
You're entitled to your opinion and I have no problem with you disliking a show like King of the Hill which you also find entertaining.:confused:
I was just mocking your initial arrogant and childish attitude and silly arguments: your ridiculous "OOOOOO, oh no you dih-uh!" and your hilarious "funny voices aren't funny" statements.
(I'm tellin' ya Haredevil: They should make a show about YOU!)
I think you've singlehandedly put more words on this thread about why you hate King of the Hill than all others combined have typed about why they like it, so I won't challenge you to write any more essays. We get it now: You hate King of the Hill and also you think it's entertaining.
No hard feelings. We had our fun. :)
Wow! I've never seen anyone miss a point this badly since Anna Kornakova's last tennis match.
The main point is that King of the Hill is artisticly wrong because it's an animated show that mimics live action. Only complete morons with no imagination approach animation this way. I know this is probably the fifth or sixth time I've repeated that in this thread but that's only because it's a lesson that more people need to know now more than ever.
I never ever said the show was entertaining. Try arguing with the words I ACTUALLY say instead of the ones you yourself put there.
But, judging by your last post, you've already walked away from this thread and probably don't care anymore. Fine, this post is for anyone wandering in to learn how animation is done. Remember all you upcoming animation students: use the animation medium to its fullest potential. Don't be an idiot and just mimic live action like Mike Judge or that hack Chris Landreth. Stay true to the artform. :cool:
Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.
You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti
Whoo - and Chris Landreth gets hit by the blowback... :D
I agree with Haredevil about one other thing (besides the characters being entertaining): I'm glad that King of the Hill is ending after 10 years. The network didn't cancel the show. Judge has the integrity to end it before it grows stale like The Simpsons, and even like Looney Tunes in the 1950s.
Now, on to your letters:
Haredevil Hare writes:
Wow, what a thoughtful scholar and critic.
Yes, for god's sake, don't be an "idiot" and create two of television's most original and successful animated shows.
Only a "complete moron" creates an animated series that runs alongside the Simpsons for 10 years.
Instead, be a complete genius by instigating flame wars in cartoon forums.
Remember, folks, "true animation" is only what Haredevil says it is.
Also, black is white and up is down. :rolleyes:
I'll let you answer that one:
Thanks for continuing to bump my thread up, Haredevil. This show deserves it: a show so good that it enrages the Queen of Hearts. :D
Yeah, Brittany Spears was also successful. That doesn't mean she was good. :p
Um, actually, like I stated before, King of the Hill was only successful because it LEECHED off the Simpsons. Some of the the talent on the Simpsons was used under contract on King of the Hill. That's the ONLY reason the show went anywhere at all.
I said the characters fit the bill of being MUNDANE not entertaining. That's thepoint you missed (or chose to miss) before.
Hey, thanks for the compliment. :p And I'm taking it as a compliment because it's much more intellectual than anything YOU'VE ever posted here. All you've done is wave a fake light saber and shout "OOOOH I'll vanquish you" without even offering anything the least bit substantial. Like the saying goes: PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!
Actually, what I said about animation is what he industry says it is. Look it up.
You nor anybody else has answered this question.
Once again, all you hurl are insults when you could be saying something intelligent. It's quite obvious that you ran out of steam on this topic several posts ago. If you've nothing more to add than "I think you're wrong" or "I think you suck" then it ends here. But if you actually have some intellectual input, I'm ready for it. (This oughta be good. :rolleyes: )
Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.
You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti
Who said "good"?
You said that people who make animation that you don't like are "idiots" and "morons." Can't you get your own words straight?
That is ridiculous. Why did Futurama fail then? No other show "leeched off The Simpsons" more than Futurama, and it struggled for its entire run.
Why was Beavis & Butt-Head so successful? Which Simpsons creators did they "leech"?
As a "complete genius" once said "Try arguing with the words [you] ACTUALLY [said] ..."
You said "can be entertaining." You did not say "not entertaining," you liar. :p
That was obviously a parody of your own arrogance and pomposity. By returning to that, you only insult yourself. :rolleyes:
Here, let's remind everybody:
HAREDEVIL (post #20):[i] "Oooooooooooooh, you HAD to go there. Everyone who knows me also knows that when talking with me you NEVER go there. Bu-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-ut, you went there. And the trip BACK from there will be much more painful.
[blah blah blah]
You may go now. :p"[/i]
Sounds like a stuck-up little creeep, but who knows? Maybe you're actually a really nice guy when mommy hides your keyboard.
more ignorance
The industry is more than Looney Tunes and their imitators. It is a vast variety of styles, many of which threaten you for some reason.
Because illustration and animation are more than just your narrow view, Haredevil. There is a charm in colorful illustration and simplified characters that live-action does not hold: it is fantastic, yet oddly believable.
You might as well ask why graphic novels don't use photographs instead, or why all superheroes aren't drawn "cartoony" like Elmer Fudd.
Aaaand you will now chicken out, since the alternative is to admit that my input is intellectual.
nice backdoor you made for yourself, you coward
Buh-bye, now! See you in the next life. ;)
On the contrary. I'm still in the game because your recent input is complete BS. And I'll prove it too. :p
No, I said that people who make animation that TRIES TO MIMIC LIVE ACTION are idiots and morons. It's seems more like YOU can't get MY words straight.
Because FOX in their infinite wisdom bounced it around the schedule too much. In their mind, only animated sitcoms about families (like the Simpsons) are successful and since Futurama wasn't about a family persay, they treated it poorly. Really, it doesn't quite count as leeching because Matt Groening was in charge of the show as well as the Simpsons. It was more a case of speading his best talent around. Of course, you'll say "then how come that sentiment doesn't apply to King of the Hill?". Well, maybe Matt threw Judge a bone every once in a while out of pity.
Certainly other shows were made after the Looney Tunes came around with many vast and wonderful styles that don't resemble Bugs Bunny's design at all. Who in this thread ever denied that? It's just that the blossoming of these divergent styles started at Termite Terrace. If they hadn't come around, Disney would be the only studio working today. It as Tex and crew that inspired other artists to not just adhere to the Disney standard but rather keep experimenting with as many techniques as possible. Yes, that was done at the Disney studio as well but only under the thumb of Disney himself. That's what lead to the strike in '41, the studio sort of collapsed under itself with Walt playing the despot all the time.
Creative freedom is what the Looney Tunes stand for. But they also stood for (like I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread) using the medium to its fullest potential by not simply copping out and trying to mimic live action. The industry needs keep this in mind if it wants to survive. Some studios do but unfortunately, not enough. :(
Um........... that didn't answer my question. Really, all that did was reiterate everything I've said so far. Yes, illustration DOES have a charm that live action does not hold. But you failed to show me how this relates to King of the Hill. Are you saying Mike animated this live action sitcom "just 'cause"? That's faaaaaaar from intellectual. :rolleyes:
Geez, how many times are you going to complain about that? It seems like that's the biggest beef you have with thread.
Okay! I'm sorry for the melodramatic post before. It won't happen again. There, you can stop griping about and concentrate more on the rest of my content. Good luck.
Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.
You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti
[b]WOO HOO!
Hare-Devil thinks I'm an intellectual!!!
And he responded to EACH of my points so he's admitting that each of them are intellectually-based!
YYYYES!
VICTORY!
I'm an intellectual! :D:D:D
[/b]As an intellectual, I usually don't converse with commoners, but I'll make this obvious (obvious to intellectuals, anyway) point:
An animated show doesn't stay on the air for 10 years because of some fluke. An animated show stays on the air for 10 years because millions love it.
You see, there is an animation style for everyone. Animation styles that you love, others hate. Animation that you hate, others love. Some are even open-minded enough to appreciate a variety of styles. That doesn't make some people refined and others "morons" or vice versa. It just means that there are a wide variety of tastes and enough room on the TV to accommodate many of them.
And frankly, you doth protest too much. if someone can so easily be persuaded to write 3000 words about why they hate a show, then that show must be doing something right.
yours,
The Intellectual :cool:
[i]I like King of the Hill.
- Matt Groening
[/i]King Of The Hill works to create a sense of empathy for its characters, which leads to a show that's not only emotionally resonant, but also funny. ... The DVD's most revealing special feature is a comprehensive list of rules for the animators, which illustrate just how meticulous the show's creators are in crafting their fully formed cartoon universe. As the stellar first season of [i]King Of The Hill illustrates, their commitment to discipline has paid off.
...
Fox has routinely shuffled [/i][i]King Of The Hill between time slots, eventually dumping it to the Sunday-evening graveyard. Nevertheless, the animated series about the Hill family in fictitious Arlen, Texas, has remained consistently good all the way to its 10th and final season.
- The Onion AV Club
[/i][i]King of the Hill is brilliantly funny without being over-the-top, and its well-developed characters -- although animated -- are some of the most "real" people on television.
- IGN[/i]
[i]King of the Hill is one of my favourite animated shows, and this season is a perfect example of why. The twenty-five episodes slip by effortlessly and it’s difficult to point the finger at any one of them and call it a dud.
- DVD Times
[/i]The reason [i]King of the Hill is so successful is because it's close to reality in a lot of ways. No one really knows anyone as stupid as Homer Simpson or as creatively archaic as Bart, they are stereotypes taken to extremes. But I've known people like Hank and Peggy Hill.
- DVD Talk
King of the Hill: 8.3 Great (with 1600 votes)
- TV.COM
[/i][i]King of the Hill features genuine characters in stories that evoke genuine laughter in ways subtle and natural. If you have not seen it before, then you are in for a treat. The animation may not “wow” you, but the strong writing makes it one of the most underrated sitcoms on television.
- DVD Toons[/i]
Once again, you've twisted my words in playing your sick game. I never said you were an intellectual. Notice I used the conjunction IF because I was patiently WAITING for something intellectual from you since it hadn't happened yet. And conveniently you glossed over what I had posted AFTER your first attempt at intelligence:
Try and misquote THAT one. :p
Although, I am impressed with your most recent post. You actually supported your arguement this time. I took you how many posts to finally do that? Well, anyway, the point is you did it and I'm proud of you. But, now it's MY turn to support my position once again.
This link is to a site where Brad Bird talks about his approach to animation. Here's what he has to say about it:
[i]Getting hung up on the technology, on creating the most realistic water, fur or hair, "is like counting the number of notes in a symphony," he said. Participation in real life, like playing catch with a child, really seeing how water splashes when he jumps in a puddle, is how Pixar animators develop believability.
Believability is sometimes mistakenly called realism, Bird said. "A lot of my friends come out of "Nemo" and say, 'Wow -- that was so real,' but what they mean is that it was believable."
While photo-realism has its place, mainly in live-action hybrid movies such as "Lord of the Rings," "Nemo" wouldn't have worked as a photo-realistic film, Smith said. It's more of a fantasy.
But "realism" is often created by making the more intrinsic qualities of an object believable, such as capturing the weight of a falling object, Bird said. In "The Incredibles," shattering glass seems real not because it's ultra-realistic, but because the animators have captured the kinetic energy of that glass breaking into pieces.[/i]
John Lasseter had something similar to say in another interview.
[i]At Pixar, we like to think we use our tools to make things look photo realistic, without trying to reproduce reality. We like to take those tools and make something that the audience knows does not exist. Every frame they know this is a cartoon. So you get that wonderful visual entertainment of, 'I know this isn't real, but boy it sure looks real'. I think that's part of the fun of what we do. The closer you get to trying to reproducing reality the much harder it is - especially human beings.
The audience see human beings everyday, so they know when it's not right. That's why we try and stay in the stylised world, which I think is successful. I don't see the point in reproducing a human being because you get a camera and a great actor and, trust me, it's so much cheaper and easier, and it will be so much more successful.[/i]
There you have it. Testimony from two successful bigwigs in the industry. Both concur with my basic point: don't mimic reality in animation because a stylized approach has a much better sense of realism than straight realism does. I'm sure most people would take the work of Bird and Lasster over Judge anyday.
Now YOU'RE the pompous little creep whose mommy needs to take his keyboard away. :p And really, you got a little TOO excited when you thought I considered you a smart person. If you're so insecure that you actually need me to justify your existence well that's just sad. :o But, I did say I was proud of you in this post didn't I? You can sleep comfy in your cotton jumpers tonight. ;)
Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.
You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti
Oooooo, that one really got to you, didn't it? ... so much so that you couldn't even sputter out your own original insult. I thought it might push your buttons. ... a little too close to home, eh? hehehe :D
Thanks again for admitting that my posts are intellectual by responding to me again. ;) No amount of twisting, backpeddling, or lying can alter your claim that you will only respond to my "intellectual input."
Well, wonderful. You put up some quotes about how John Lasseter and Brad Bird (former King of the Hill executive animation consultant) like to have their films animated.
Did they ever say "our way of animating is the only correct way of animating"? Did they ever say "Mike Judge's animation is not true animation"? No, they didn't and they don't believe it because they have what are known as "inclusive, open minds." They leave the narrow-minded stupidity to insular fanboys like yourself.
Did you ever see that Seinfeld episode about the "animation nazi"? The "animation nazi" was a character who believed that all animation must conform to certain rules or be sent to labor camps. I think that's how it went ...
Again, the only thing you're proving is that you personally hate King of the Hill. You are not proving that it's disrespected by the industry; you are not proving that people don't love it; and you are not proving that it isn't successful, visually-appealing, and entertaining.
The fact that someone, with such narrow views of what animation is supposed to be, hates a show so much to devote this much time and energy to it (what are we up to now: 4000 words?) is one of the greatest compliments that King of the Hill could receive.
You haven't a leg to stand on, Stubby, but - please - continue to embarrass yourself. :rolleyes:
yours,
The Intellectual :cool:
Woah... :eek: :eek:
Calm down guys...it's just a cartoon...
James :cool:
"JUST a cartoon"?
How dare you? There's no such thing. :p
... and don't worry: we have a "safety word." ;)
It's becaome abundantly clear. You don't really want to talk about how animation works or its appeal at all. You just want to keep defending King of the Hill to the end. No matter what I've posted here, your response pretty much has been "so what, alot of people I know like it". Well, alot of people enjoy 'reality tv' as well but that certainly doesn't justify it or make it good in any way. That's why you've had this troll-like attitude throughout the entire thread.
Like this statement here:
You've set things up so that no matter what I post from now on it seems like you've won this battle lock, stock, and barrel. That's the cowardly "let's end this already" approach. Instead of supporting your arguements you just want keep using a string of knee-jerk intimidation techniques. That may work on lesser members but they don't work on me. Either discuss things like a civilized person or stay out. (Notice the last statement was an invitation to post more rather than some roundabout ambush strategy. That's the difference between your posts and mine).
I'm not sure about John Lasseter but Brad Bird certainly has. On the Incredibles dvd he mentioned something about how animation is not supposed to simply mimic live action. That the best way to achieve believability in animation is through traditional animation techniques that enhance the action.
How about this for a deal: I'll stop bashing King of the Hill if you admit that your favourite Texas based show is nothing more than a guilty pleasure that you happen to love no matter what.
Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.
You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti
pathetic
Mike Judge has done more to champion and popularize animation than all the members of this forum combined.
Show some friggin' respect!
Look, how many different ways do I have to say it?
I DON'T SHARE YOUR OPINION!
I don't have a pedantic attitude toward animation. I like LOTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF ANIMATION. I like animation that bends the "rules." I like animation like King of the Hill which creates a more reality-based environment while retaining an idealistic, ethereal quality: almost like a work of folk art.
You are not saying anything new, Harry. You're just saying "I only like animation that follows the Disney/Looney Tunes model" a slightly different way each time.
We get it already! Say something new or MOVE ON!
yours,
The Intellectual :cool:
I personally like the fact that the King of the Hill people didn't try to make it look like all the other animation out there. The style fits the material. And I enjoy those crazy Texans. So it doesn't fit all the guidelines you were taught to follow in school, Picasso and Lautrec broke with tradition also. I am sure the snobs of their day ran their work down also.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Yes, I felt the need to be repetitive because the lunkhead I was arguing with wasn't GETTING IT! So I said many many other times and I even got John Lasseter and Brad Bird on record saying it but the same lunkhead STILL didn't get it. And, eventually it became clearer that this individual would NEVER EVER get it.
So now, I will move on and let this self-titled intellectual continue to wallow in a world where King of the Hill doesn't suck and animation looks the same as live action because nobody there has any imagination.
With that I say good day.
Yours,
the True Intellectual :cool:
Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.
You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti
Good God, but you're dense!
I "[got] it," pinhead. I just don't AGREE WITH IT, and neither do Lasseter and Bird. "[No] imagination" is to have all animation follow the same rules, as YOU wish it would do. I say (to paraphrase Phacker) "with art, rules are made to be broken."
Yours are the most inane of positions. You are trying to convince KOTH fans to dislike the show on the grounds that they should have a more narrow view of what animation should be.
I love most animation while you HATE most animation. You are an elitist, a snob. People like you are animation's worst enemy; and, if animation were a person, it would despise you. :mad:
[b]
But you HAD to go there.
You see, everyone who knooooowzzzz me knows that, when TALKing with me, you nEEEEEEEEver go there. (strut*strut*strut*finger-wag)
Bu-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-
u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-
u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-
u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-
u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-
u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-
u-u-u-ut you went there, ma'am; and the trip BACK from "there" was much more painful. Don't you agree?[/b] ;)
yours,
You're an Idiot, Haredevil Hare :cool:
P.S.
[b]SAY
SOMETHING
NEW[/b]
I'll probably regret this, but...
Why do you feel the need to insult others to make your point in what is obviously an argument with Harvey? This, along with your earlier random swipe at Chris Landreth, speak volumes.
My personal opinion of KotH:
It's an okay show and funny most of the time because it deals w/ real life circumstances and has good morals The animation is definantly limited yes, but I think the good stories/plots make up for that. It's definantly not "The Incredibles" in terms of animation but it works okay I guess.
Heck, it's one of the cleanest animated sitcoms out there. It' waaay cleaner than Family Guy or South Park (which both base most of they're jokes on sex and religion which I am not that fond of) or even The Simpsons.
Anyway, that's my opinion :D
James :cool:
A lot of animators like to go on about the importance of story and characterisation etc, etc. But when it comes down to it their real passion lies in the visual end of things. Let's face it, otherwise they'd be writing novels. Animation is a visual medium, therefore you should use visual gags and visual storytelling. If the animation doesn't conform to a certain visual standard, they're just never going to give it a real chance and they don't care what it has to say.