It's weird to think how a piece of media changed. and developed over time from it's original intent...

It's weird to think how a piece of media changed
and developed over time from it's original intent... When creators create cartoons they usually have whole complex networks of ideas in their mind that work to shape the character, and as the character changes it cements itself more as a symbol of itself, rather than a symbol of what it originally represented.
And when new people take on the job of writing said character, they don't know the vast series of connections and associations that span the original creator's mind, only the final result they see on screen to work off of, and so even if they perfectly understand what they see and copy it in their own work, it'll still never feel quite the same because they don't have the context and history and knowladge the creator has.

Spongebob was originally created as a representation of a young guy looking to make his place in the world, interacting with his elders, getting his first job, and so on... You might still get that feeling when you look at old concept art, you see someone who can be described as a teen/young adult, a person. Whereas later on, he just becomes 'Spongebob'. He represents a new concept that has now been created- being Spongebob. He no longer represents something that existed before he was created, he now represents something that has only existed after he was created, which is himself.
And I think that's very interesting.

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    that's what happens when you run out of ideas for a show but want money

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't think you read my post.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >spongebob was initially a simple cartoon with a grounded theme in mind
        >it later evolved into a behemoth with clashing themes and ideas, which is something nobody saw coming when originally coming up with ideas

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          While that is true, it's not really what I meant, I was moreso expressing my curiosity in how the original creator's mind affects the show they write in ways their successors can never truly copy because it is ultimately influenced by things they cannot see or comprehend, possibly the creator's entire life and everything that shaped them up until that point.
          As well as the fact that the more grounded in our world an idea becomes, the more it becomes a representation of itself, rather than whatever it was originally representing.

          Courage the cowardly dog originally represented a cowardly dog, but as you recognize the character more and more, he begins representing himself, the character, Courage.
          Edd Ed and Eddy originally represented a buncha kida living in a cul-de-sac, but as they became more cemented as characters they began representing themselves, the characters, Edd, Ed and Eddy from the cartoon.
          This happens to everything. In the case of Spongebob it is one of the many aspects that lead to it decreasing in quality, combined with the desire for money and for keeping a show alive beyond it's welcome. The greed, downgrade of the show and the desire to keep it alive for long is not what created this natural phenomena.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You’re saying that shows begin high in concept, in order to pull people into the setting, and become low concept as the characters become familiar
            https://www.filmmaker.tools/high-concept-vs-low-concept
            This seems entirely fair, I can’t agree with your skepticism towards the fact

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              That too is a completely different statement which is true, but not at all what I'm saying
              It seems to me that you entered this thread with the idea in mind that Spongebob downgraded in quality, an idea I very much agree with, but not the idea I was trying to deliver. And you are attempting to read that idea into my post and figure out if I'm posing the question "Why did Spongebob downgrade in quality?"

              That is an interesting question that we can probably discuss, but now a question I was making.
              As for that question, I'm sure the fact I mentioned- which is the inability for human beings to fully express what's in their head and what the whole thought process behind their creation is- is at least in part responsible for the end result of the show now being as high quality now as it used to be, but that alone can't be the whole cause, it only exacerbates the preexisting issues when the new creators don't want to care.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The rendering of the idea into an actual work, is the act of creation itself. It’s nice to imagine our ideas can go onto the paper perfectly, and sometimes maybe they can, but the changes that occur when making your idea physical, are not inherently inferior to the original idea. I appreciate originality and wanting to keep on track, but I would advise against the feeling that everything that changes in form is ‘straying’

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ultimately when you create something, every aspect of you influences it, your whole life's history, everything that made you the person you are today.

                That's actually one of the things I very much dislike about AI art, there's no intent behind it, you can't feel a person and the way their whole life culminates in what they created. It's a picture without a past, without a process, it only exists here and now to be consumed instantly.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the feeling that everything that changes in form is ‘straying’
                But it is, isn't it? That's by definition what change is. The real question is whether or not change is inherently a good or bad thing, in which case the answer is inconcrete, it can be good and it can very well be bad. But it is change nontheless, and that's a fact.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No. A first draft, or a first vision of a work, is not a more ‘pure’ source of anything. It is not ‘the original and most true shining golden real authentic first thing’, it’s just a first draft, usually filled with problems needing to be worked out, minimal writing content (including whatever jokes, episodes, scenarios or etc that make up the bulk of the work), and a lot of untested guesswork, along with every other thing that makes a draft not ready for publication.
                I appreciate the traditional and often very logical idea that things are best as their originals, and that the world and time cause only decay, but actually when I think about it, I don’t respect that idea at all. The idea that decency or completeness itself comes only from some starting point that by definition is lost to the past, is regressiveness itself. It’s a religious type of thinking, one that says ‘oh gosh this world just seems like too much, it’s gotten too complicated with time, let’s hope god just wraps this up and returns us all to zero’
                I would ask you to seriously analyze the purpose and results of that regressive type of thinking, how it makes you feel and if you have ever actually regressed something back into it’s ‘original, most true’ quality’. Ask yourself why you even think that’s the way things are, where you got that idea, and how it leads you to basically think any forward movement is the killing of something holy. Think on this, you may go.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If work can be compared to alcohol, than the first draft is the raw grain concoction first brewed, it'll age and distill further and further to perfection, or as close to it's intent as it can be, and that is the finished product. But that finished spirit can also be watered down, and as time goes on it inherently will, just as ethanol evaporates, so will original intent. The only question is in what rate. Will it evaporate naturally, over the course of a long time? Or will someone pour water into the bottle and dilute it quickly.
                The purest form of a piece of media IS the form closest to the ideal intent, which a draft is not, but it's purpose is to get there.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No. You can use whatever metaphors you want, that doesn’t make it true. The best form of the idea could easily be one that’s more worked out and developed than the original. The original SpongeBoy pitch you’re posting probably isn’t even the first draft in the first place, the first idea was probably just some inkling in Hillenberg’s mind, that needed dozens of hours of writing and rewriting to turn into the spongeboy pitch. The best version of something is often chapter 3, or the arc that starts 8 years into the run, or a literal remake and rewrite done 80 years later by completely different people. There is no intuitive reason any ‘first’ is inherently the best, and cheap metaphors will only deceive you. You are putting yourself in a world where the only two things that can happen in any situation, is you stay course and nothing changes, or something causes a change and you lose, and there’s no reason to think that’s the way it is or live like that. There is no option for growth in that universe, it is a dead thing holding onto meaning and value it apparently cannot produce, because all they can do is try to crawl back to someone else’s original. There is no reason to think anything’s like this, unless it’s actually one of those things, the only reason to call all things a ‘watered down and increasingly impure alcohol’, is just your own personal tick. It’s rooted in nothing in the first place. Also, even in your own metaphor, alcohol gets better with time. You can also adulterate original materials into greater things, like concrete or a meal that isn’t just chewing on grass. You know this

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The original SpongeBoy pitch you’re posting probably isn’t even the first draft in the first place
                Didn't say it was, and again, my original post had nothing to do with the show changing in quality or whether or not the changes are good or bad, you took me and forced me into a whole nother conversation so you will discuss it as if it is separate from my intent with this thread, because it is, you can't force a topic I never intended and then insist it relates to my original post
                I'm starting to think you are intentionally insisting on having a disingenuous conversation. You built your idea of me as a person in your head and are referencing your arguments off of that simulation, not my posts, and I don't want to have a discussion with someone who takes my words about as well as a brick wall. I'm sorry anon, I'm out.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes dude I actually find your way of thinking fairly depressive and pointless, obsessed with impurity with no option to get this alleged purity back. There’s no need to make a meta-discussion around it, I have to say about what you have to say, that you might not have thought about. That’s what it means to have a new idea in a conversation, and your insistence we only stick to your most pure original idea, as if because it feels good to you it must be the only way, is another part of your belief that exposure and interaction to the world is impurity itself.
                To keep it simple, pining over the SpongeBoy pitch because you already got used to the best seasons of your favorite show, acting like the old pitch surely would have made a better show than it already did, is pointless

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I have something to say* about what you have to say, that you might not have thought about

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                YOU
                ARE MAKING UP
                HEADCANONS
                ABOUT
                ME
                I seriously don't know how much further I can explain this, you can continue spinning this story all you want but you're arguing shit I never claimed. My original post said
                >People can't know what's in someone else's head and what the original intent behind a creation was.
                >A character that's first created as a concept ends up being a simulacra of themselves.
                That's it, and it can be summarizes with the very last sentence:

                https://i.imgur.com/hC79DoU.jpg

                It's weird to think how a piece of media changed
                and developed over time from it's original intent... When creators create cartoons they usually have whole complex networks of ideas in their mind that work to shape the character, and as the character changes it cements itself more as a symbol of itself, rather than a symbol of what it originally represented.
                And when new people take on the job of writing said character, they don't know the vast series of connections and associations that span the original creator's mind, only the final result they see on screen to work off of, and so even if they perfectly understand what they see and copy it in their own work, it'll still never feel quite the same because they don't have the context and history and knowladge the creator has.

                Spongebob was originally created as a representation of a young guy looking to make his place in the world, interacting with his elders, getting his first job, and so on... You might still get that feeling when you look at old concept art, you see someone who can be described as a teen/young adult, a person. Whereas later on, he just becomes 'Spongebob'. He represents a new concept that has now been created- being Spongebob. He no longer represents something that existed before he was created, he now represents something that has only existed after he was created, which is himself.
                And I think that's very interesting.

                >And I think that's very interesting.

                You took all that to create a caricature of some random dude who is not me, and are constantly beating on it, as I try to explain to you again and again that that's not what my thread is about, and you keep dishonestly claiming "Ok but what ARE you like this?" like some kinda quack psychiatrist. It is annoying and unpleasant.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I asked rhetorical questions that showed where focus on the idea of original purity lead to false conclusions, based on your train of thought which begs those questions, where you drew no conclusions yourself

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'll be honest, I don't wanna discuss with you anymore. I don't care anymore. I'm done. You are a tiring human being. Just forget about it and let's post more Spongebob.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >’you know how no idea can be properly rendered and is in some part adulterated by being created into the world? How we can never really know eachother because of this change? I thought that was interesting’
                >yeah, what’s interesting about it, is that it implies all created objects are somehow flawed and that communication is some kind of loss or cannot properly succeed, which can be a bad and depressing way to think
                >’…I didn’t ask you to say that, please say only things I expected you to say’
                >I was being rhetorical to make a point
                >’…just stop talking to me, I’m so depressed’
                Weird. Especially because your disappointment here comes from being unwilling to take an idea somewhere you hadn’t planned. You’ve gone and gotten depressed because you can’t stand to see your pure idea adulterated by sharing it!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>’…just stop talking to me, I’m so depressed’
                >You’ve gone and gotten depressed because-
                anon you know you're doing it again right? like its clear you only started this conversation to 'win' and not converse and youre doing the exact thing youve been criticized for can you stop bro

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I’m just having a regular conversation with you, and you keep saying ‘no you can’t say that because that’s not the idea I had’, people sharing new ideas is how it’s supposed to happen!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That was a really interesting post that you just wrote, about Bigfoot. It was really insightful, the way you mentioned Bigfoot's habitat in the Pacific North West and the difficulty of locating him (if he exists). I really enjoyed your extended explanation of the suspected social and behavioral habits of Bigfoot. Thank you for talking so much about Bigfoot.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Kek

                This thread is a mess but it's a funny mess

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The thread is about how ideas are inherently altered when put to page, I say this is a depressing thought that has minimal use, because if true, it means we can never truly know someone or their idea. That follows directly from what OP brought up. Then he goes on to say me adding to the idea means I ‘don’t get it’, even as he directly explains that to him is like an opened wine getting worse by the day. And when I say ‘what about things that get better with time, like wine even’, he gets mad and depressed with me I’m not ‘supporting’ his idea enough by just blindly agreeing even when I don’t!
                And this

                I think your whole notion of a character is wrong thoght? The character is not created as a concept, it's the concept that evolves into a character- the concept "young man getting his first job and going thru life" is less than nothing, it's the epitome of an "idea guy" pitch. The character Spongebob as we know it (as it even appears in the art you posted) must by definition be removed a thousandfold from that concept. It can only exist as its own specific, endlessly refined version of itself.
                The question becomes even more interesting in animation because it is almost by definition a collaborative effort- Tom Kenny is also bring his own subjectivity into Spongebob's voice, which is no doubt completely different and maybe even disconnected from Hillburg's own. The original concept you describe cannot be seen or reproduced because it cannot exist out of collaboration

                I do think something closer to what you mean can be seen in comic books since they're more likely to feature a single creative voice, and at the same time can be even more convoluted in it's exchange of subjectivities. Like who the frick even knows what the point of the X-Men is, when it's been kicked back and forth over the decades by so many creators who had their own idea of what the franchise was? When did Wolverine truly become Wolverine? Over and over you have new writers wanting to get "back to basics" but they'll never figure out what those basics are.

                guy is completely right, he appreciates the object itself as a gestalt object, and not as some inferior to the ‘pure’ ingredient that is the idea!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The thread is about how ideas are inherently altered when put to page (...) it means we can never truly know someone or their idea.
                yes that's clearly what the thread is about
                and then you proceed to assume what OP intends with this, what this says about them as a person, and their emotional response to it
                they tell you to frick off, in more polite terms
                you diagnose them with the depression

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I said I hate this train of thought, explained why, and asked rhetorical questions explaining the slippery slope. Anon is the one who said he was getting depressed, I responded to that post once saying ‘and now you’re depressed’, because he said he was.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Anon is the one who said he was getting depressed
                WHERE homie
                where

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is the post I meant

                I'll be honest, I don't wanna discuss with you anymore. I don't care anymore. I'm done. You are a tiring human being. Just forget about it and let's post more Spongebob.

                Suddenly he’s all sad and tired. Depressed maybe was a strong word for me to use, but the guy gets all mopey just because someone’s said something he wouldn’t about something he brought up.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yeah i'd also be tired and... "sad"? speaking to you
                i don't see sad in that post but i imagine that's what people usually feel communicating with you too so you're just pulling from typical experiences
                you really are an annoying human being

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I made one point aggressively because I believe in it, and OP kept responding saying I shouldn’t make that point because he didn’t introduce it. The rest has been a fight over my etiquette and not the point of the thread at all, OP fell off talking about that because he’d rather moan a poster went another direction with it than just say ‘I didn’t say that but yeah we shouldn’t let this idea depress us’

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >just say ‘I didn’t say that but yeah we shouldn’t let this idea depress us’

                To quote

                While that is true, it's not really what I meant, I was moreso expressing my curiosity in how the original creator's mind affects the show they write in ways their successors can never truly copy because it is ultimately influenced by things they cannot see or comprehend, possibly the creator's entire life and everything that shaped them up until that point.
                As well as the fact that the more grounded in our world an idea becomes, the more it becomes a representation of itself, rather than whatever it was originally representing.

                Courage the cowardly dog originally represented a cowardly dog, but as you recognize the character more and more, he begins representing himself, the character, Courage.
                Edd Ed and Eddy originally represented a buncha kida living in a cul-de-sac, but as they became more cemented as characters they began representing themselves, the characters, Edd, Ed and Eddy from the cartoon.
                This happens to everything. In the case of Spongebob it is one of the many aspects that lead to it decreasing in quality, combined with the desire for money and for keeping a show alive beyond it's welcome. The greed, downgrade of the show and the desire to keep it alive for long is not what created this natural phenomena.

                >While that is true, it's not really what I meant

                sounds exactly like "i didn't say that but yeah"
                the only part being left out is the part about depression but OP never seemed depressed to begin with thats just something you keep latching onto

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We were perfectly civil until this point of contention

                >the feeling that everything that changes in form is ‘straying’
                But it is, isn't it? That's by definition what change is. The real question is whether or not change is inherently a good or bad thing, in which case the answer is inconcrete, it can be good and it can very well be bad. But it is change nontheless, and that's a fact.

                that all change is ‘straying’. Then here

                Also
                > would ask you to seriously analyze the purpose and results of that regressive type of thinking, how it makes you feel and if you have ever actually regressed something back into it’s ‘original, most true’ quality’. Ask yourself why you even think that’s the way things are, where you got that idea, and how it leads you to basically think any forward movement is the killing of something holy.
                You are just straight up making things up now, either reading incorrectly into what I say, or perhaps it is I who inefficiently expresses what I want to say and allow you to fill in the blanks with your own beliefs... Or you came into this thread with no desire to comprehend it at all, and were intent on veering it towards your own intent from the start
                I don't know when or where you decided that the statement I was making is that change is inherently wrong, or why you assumed I am fueled by some kinda fear of it, but you did, you did not ask If I do, you simply demanded I question WHY I do the thing you have determined I do with such confidence that the preceding step is unnecessary

                Funnily enough this is pretty apt to what my original point was, which is that no one can truly tell what goes in in someone's mind, only what they make with it, and in leu of context we fill in our own, and that's how an idea changes over time

                OP gets particularly upset I keep talking about the risks and worries of this way of thinking, as if they shouldn’t be mentioned if he doesn’t feel them himself. But he doesn’t have to feel them for them to be in effect, by considering this ‘straying’ he is talking about decay, the idea that all things are straying from purity. But purity is just a word for unmixed ingredients, so why make a focus on straying and decay when the original thing isn’t even pure?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon do you have depression?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you hate the train of thought that ideas inherently changed when put to page and you can never know what someone is thinking? because you did agree with it
                or do you hate some other thought which you then virgin birthed outta nowhere and assumed was logical progression from the previous statement

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I hate the part of this idea that implies every step of rendering an idea is a loss, as if you don’t add to the idea and you don’t built it from something intangible to something real by making it. It’s better to say ‘let’s put everything in to this idea and it will finally grow into something real’, instead of ‘people can’t know other people’s ideas’, as if you were eating an entire cake and thinking ‘I’ll never be able to taste just the raw brown sugar since they made it into this cake’

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, yes, it is interesting how Nessie is easy to dismiss because of the size of the Loch Ness really couldn't support an animal at her size and/or trophic level without having been seen and documented by now, but the same is not true for Bigfoot! I'm not sure why you quoted

                I think your whole notion of a character is wrong thoght? The character is not created as a concept, it's the concept that evolves into a character- the concept "young man getting his first job and going thru life" is less than nothing, it's the epitome of an "idea guy" pitch. The character Spongebob as we know it (as it even appears in the art you posted) must by definition be removed a thousandfold from that concept. It can only exist as its own specific, endlessly refined version of itself.
                The question becomes even more interesting in animation because it is almost by definition a collaborative effort- Tom Kenny is also bring his own subjectivity into Spongebob's voice, which is no doubt completely different and maybe even disconnected from Hillburg's own. The original concept you describe cannot be seen or reproduced because it cannot exist out of collaboration

                I do think something closer to what you mean can be seen in comic books since they're more likely to feature a single creative voice, and at the same time can be even more convoluted in it's exchange of subjectivities. Like who the frick even knows what the point of the X-Men is, when it's been kicked back and forth over the decades by so many creators who had their own idea of what the franchise was? When did Wolverine truly become Wolverine? Over and over you have new writers wanting to get "back to basics" but they'll never figure out what those basics are.

                , though, as his post is not about Bigfoot, the way I've chosen to interpret your post as. I mean, keep the Bigfoot coming, your material is great, but why involve all this Non-Bigfoot nonsense when all I want to talk about, and therefore how I, insistently, interpret your posts, and what you therefore have a duty to respond to. More Bigfoot, more of "the idea I have brought to your post," and less all that other junk!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I think your whole notion of a character is wrong thoght? The character is not created as a concept, it's the concept that evolves into a character- the concept "young man getting his first job and going thru life" is less than nothing, it's the epitome of an "idea guy" pitch. The character Spongebob as we know it (as it even appears in the art you posted) must by definition be removed a thousandfold from that concept. It can only exist as its own specific, endlessly refined version of itself.
                The question becomes even more interesting in animation because it is almost by definition a collaborative effort- Tom Kenny is also bring his own subjectivity into Spongebob's voice, which is no doubt completely different and maybe even disconnected from Hillburg's own. The original concept you describe cannot be seen or reproduced because it cannot exist out of collaboration

                I do think something closer to what you mean can be seen in comic books since they're more likely to feature a single creative voice, and at the same time can be even more convoluted in it's exchange of subjectivities. Like who the frick even knows what the point of the X-Men is, when it's been kicked back and forth over the decades by so many creators who had their own idea of what the franchise was? When did Wolverine truly become Wolverine? Over and over you have new writers wanting to get "back to basics" but they'll never figure out what those basics are.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Also
                > would ask you to seriously analyze the purpose and results of that regressive type of thinking, how it makes you feel and if you have ever actually regressed something back into it’s ‘original, most true’ quality’. Ask yourself why you even think that’s the way things are, where you got that idea, and how it leads you to basically think any forward movement is the killing of something holy.
                You are just straight up making things up now, either reading incorrectly into what I say, or perhaps it is I who inefficiently expresses what I want to say and allow you to fill in the blanks with your own beliefs... Or you came into this thread with no desire to comprehend it at all, and were intent on veering it towards your own intent from the start
                I don't know when or where you decided that the statement I was making is that change is inherently wrong, or why you assumed I am fueled by some kinda fear of it, but you did, you did not ask If I do, you simply demanded I question WHY I do the thing you have determined I do with such confidence that the preceding step is unnecessary

                Funnily enough this is pretty apt to what my original point was, which is that no one can truly tell what goes in in someone's mind, only what they make with it, and in leu of context we fill in our own, and that's how an idea changes over time

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I have a solid point that you just don’t want to listen to. I have listed several examples where the original is not the purest best form, and where the original you revere isn’t even the original like you think it is. I have explained the psychological issue with this routine, how it leaves you thinking there’s nowhere to go but down as long as any idea hits the real world, even though the whole point of ideas is to be put in the world and interact with it. You haven’t even made an argument, you just feel like this pitch which needed to be worked into a show that you love, must be the best SpongeBob, in pure theory. Just listen for once play

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I have listed
                You have listed many things, most of which I don't even disagree with. You forgot only one thing tho- where the FRICK did I make any of these statements?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I didn’t say you said them, I said your direct statement that originals are more pure, leads to false conclusions, which I listed. If you have specific points you want to discuss about why an original is better in some certain case, then go ahead and share them, but ‘it’s better because it’s more pure, and change means adulteration’ is not something to go by when it leaves you ignoring that a wine tastes better with age just to believe it

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why are they staring me like that?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what kinda fricked up burger did you request? theyre probably confused and judging your order

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >A Double Triple Bossy Deluxe, on a raft, four-by-four animal-style, extra shingles with a shimmy and a squeeze, light axle grease, make it cry, burn it, and let it swim.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How do you guys order your burgers, do you think Spongebob could make it alright?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      as long as he can grill the onions, i hate raw onions

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Red or white onions?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          i prefer red grilled

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I’d trust SpongeBob to serve me something good. He knows what he’s doing.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a shame how often people insist on having conversations with a fictional version of someone instead of just...discussing things. When you realize how often it also happens IRL and in contexts much more serious than Spongebob you start to understand why nothing works.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      youre right dammit
      people form whole characters in their mind about a person and speak to that character instead of the person in front of them, hoping that whatever they say just happens to also apply to the real individual
      it seems like a lot of people speak not even to converse, but just to talk, like they're being judged for their performance and what they actually say, and what the other person says, doesn't need to be comprehended by either party
      i imagine that's also where the "winning arguments" mindset comes from
      if you argue just to show off to some hypothetical unlooker and not to hear the other person's opinions or express your own, you argue to win by some arbitrary metric

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      youre right dammit
      people form whole characters in their mind about a person and speak to that character instead of the person in front of them, hoping that whatever they say just happens to also apply to the real individual
      it seems like a lot of people speak not even to converse, but just to talk, like they're being judged for their performance and what they actually say, and what the other person says, doesn't need to be comprehended by either party
      i imagine that's also where the "winning arguments" mindset comes from
      if you argue just to show off to some hypothetical unlooker and not to hear the other person's opinions or express your own, you argue to win by some arbitrary metric

      I don’t know who you are, I’m not saying you’re a bad person who has all bad ideas! You brought up an idea saying it was interesting to you and you wanted to talk about it, and I responded to that idea stating where I am skeptical of it! And now you feel betrayed because someone else is using their own internal idea and expressing it against yours? And where’s the respect for my idea, pal? This is the basis of communication, people will bring up ideas, none of which totally encapsulate their entire being and aren’t true in all cases of their life, and people respond to the sentence made out of your idea, with their idea they got from the sentence! It’s how people talk! Was the whole point just for you to teach us your pure idea, or weren’t you planning on having a conversation here?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Dude you're not even responding to the thread's OP and you're still engendering your own ideas of what they mean and how they feel on them, go be a therapist or something cause you do a good job of making nonsense about someone for long periods of time and getting nothing accomplished

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, I am bringing up a related idea in a thread! One that follows directly from the thought that ideas lose originality or authenticity over time! What is with you guys?!

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Characters evolve in concept, true. Creators usually have an idea in their head, then as they develop them, the character gets more fleshed out. It's one thing for a character to be an interesting idea on a scrap of paper and another for them to be able to sustain being the main character of a kids TV show.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no where in the OP does it say "and this is a bad thing" or "it's bad how...", it just says it's interesting and odd to think about

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So what’s the problem with someone bringing up the cases where it can be? Does ‘I thought this was interesting’ mean ‘everyone only make sure to say neutral or positive things, if some of this idea’s interest includes how can it affect you negatively, don’t say so!’ What’s the big idea? OP won’t even argue the point

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        nothing wrong with bringing up how you think it can be negative
        but you can't argue with a person assuming that is what they said, and rejecting every instance where they say it's not

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I asked rhetorical questions about how he views art and the world, and he actually answered ‘yeah, making your idea into a real object is like a wine going bad’

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            what? even a moron can tell that this

            If work can be compared to alcohol, than the first draft is the raw grain concoction first brewed, it'll age and distill further and further to perfection, or as close to it's intent as it can be, and that is the finished product. But that finished spirit can also be watered down, and as time goes on it inherently will, just as ethanol evaporates, so will original intent. The only question is in what rate. Will it evaporate naturally, over the course of a long time? Or will someone pour water into the bottle and dilute it quickly.
            The purest form of a piece of media IS the form closest to the ideal intent, which a draft is not, but it's purpose is to get there.

            post says that making your idea into a real object is like wine getting good, or rather complete
            but then the further you go the more it separates from that original wine, and this can either happen slowly and naturally or very fast and intentionally
            you don't read you just type

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The fixation on ‘purity’ and its decay is unnecessary in the same way pining over sugar’s lost purity in baking a cake is

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Things that depress you will ultimately be brought up and it's ok, if they do make you sad, it's up to you to move away from them, but people will fixate on them because even negative things fascinate us
                You made it clear throughout this thread that you have serious problems with depression as you project it onto others and desperately try and demand that things that sadden you not be spoken about when they don't seem to sadden others, or when people are able to handle the sadness they feel, in a way you cannot
                Do yourself a favor and don't engage with things that exacerbate your mental condition

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What’s the problem? There’s a concern in this type of thinking and I’ve felt it, so I say so. I’m sorry if it bothers me more than it bothers you, but it’s also a major theme a ton of people on this board and elsewhere deal with - the idea that everything turns to shit in one direction because purity just can never be recovered or even achieved. Even OP said he feels that way about SpongeBob, just that he wanted to talk about this in regards to SpongeBob while pretending he wasn’t talking about it’s decay

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >isn't it interesting how cake has salt in it and it's delicious, but salt alone isn't?
                >are you saying eating too much salt can kill you? it's not healthy to think about that so much!
                >well i agree, but i wasn't thinking about it.
                >oh so you agree! you just don't wanna admit that's what your thread is about!
                >no my thread is about cake, i think it's interesting how-
                >why won't you just admit what really depresses you.... tell me about your father... did he make you eat salt out of the bag as a kid....

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It’s more like me saying thinking about the lost purity in your cake’s sugar is pointless. Because what really is so interesting about the sugar or the change from the original idea? It’s the loss! I don’t know why anyone is sitting here rubbing their chins in ‘general interest’ (which people didn’t really want to do, they’d rather argue the actual issue, which is what they did) as if they can’t muster up an actual response to it

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                so you just honestly do not believe anyone can have an interest in something and wanna discuss it, they must have a negative emotional response to it
                again it seems to me you are projecting your own sadness onto others
                dont be doing that

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I didnt say they can’t, I’m saying there is sadness to this idea that needs to be addressed and avoided

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh man don't go all depressed on me now just cause you don't wanna admit you were totally saying that

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It’s sad! I’ll say so, so what? You can sit there and neutrally opine about the decay of purity in all things, but you’re still talking about decay! I haven’t seen any positivity about it here except from one guy who made a great post. People out here talking about spoiled wine in regards to regards to people’s hopes and ideas, as an inevitability, what do you think you’re even talking about?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                well clearly we can so if you cant maybe you just suck lol git gud

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And it goes nowhere, barely anybody is posting in this thread, except for to argue with me. The idea that you sit there and just repeat the facts is certainly very academic, but pardon me for getting to the next thought, that some part of it is sad. Furthermore, the “purely neutral“ standpoint is pretty cynical itself, talking about how everything turns to sour wine as if every time you open something enough to find out you like it’s it forever getting worse, or as if a new bottle of wine isn’t bottled every day

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                u a loser

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Everyone on Cinemaphile loves turning everything into an argument. It's like that meme
      >"I like pancakes."
      >Why do you hate waffles?
      Honestly this is why people just resort to shitflinging, honest discussions are pointless. This thread reminds me of all the times someone made me argue something completely different

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Childhood is watching Spongebob, Adulthood is instantly turning into Mr. Krabs for some terrible reason, everyone thought you would at least get to be a Squidward having his own fun being bad at art and music or whatever to fill life with meaning but it's just chasing money and being too tired all the way to the bottom.
    The production music makes me feel things now.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      End of life is basically Plankton

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >It's weird to think how a piece of media changed and developed over time from it's original intent
    No, it's not.
    >And I think that's very interesting.
    No, it isn't.

    Things change when multiple minds get involved, especially when those minds are network executives. Spongebob dropped pretty much all intent of depicting him as a "young guy looking to make his place in the world" was a theme that was only present for a handful of episodes, even in the first season, and was largely dropped completely by the end of season 2.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >an interesting thread about writing and story ideas devolving into shit by homosexuals who argue just to hear themselves speak or see themselves type, whatever, same thing

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Spongebob was originally created as a representation of a young guy looking to make his place in the world
    And Rocko did it better

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I get what you mean OP and I've thought about the exact same thing with things like Pokemon. The original game represented an idea conjured up by the original creator, but since he's been gone the games just feel like a facsimile of a facsimile of what was ever intended, by people just trying to keep the train going.
    You'll see it in any big franchise

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody on Cinemaphile knows what schizo means anymore

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I thought about this alot, OP. If I could make my cartoon idea a reality would the artists and writers change my initial foundation of a cartoon into somthing I can never really say is my idea? That's not ideal for most people. Although, I do like to think most cartoonists have more creative-control over their work. Sometimes this isn't the case though?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *