ITT: Your most hated cliché jokes.
For me it's "character overexplains something," i.e. Kinger from The Amazing Digital Circus saying, "Well, [you can't really be hungry], because we don't need to eat, drink, or sleep in this digital world, so the digital food here only gives off the virtual sensation of eating, without any of the nutritional benefits."
Haha, isn't it foony? Character say many word.
Stop being such a bitter frickwit
>If you don't mindlessly consume you're bitter
If you mindlessly consume things like this show you'll end up mentally ill.
It's relatable for industry people because they care more about social approval than being funny.
rare guy trutherald
It's okay to view media critically. Recognizing the parts of something you don't like doesn't make you "bitter;" it gives you a personality.
No, but being a little b***h about it does indicate that one is bitter. He didn't point out anything bad about it, only that he had grown tired of it, and he made sure to express himself in a way as annoying as he was annoyed.
>Digital circus fans when anyone says something bad about the show
>why are characters quickly providing exposition in the first episode?????
It's funny because the person who made this show is obviously making use of it to ensure the show is well paced but still explains what's happening, thus indicating they comprehend basic direction of a TV show.
Then, there's you. You call this a "cliche". You've seen it before, therefore it's bad. That's as far as you thought.
>character need to explain obvious thing because me stupid
They need to include the thing or it’s just not in the show. What do you think, you’re supposed to just sit alone by yourself and think, ‘ah, and the food wouldn’t be satisfying either’ and it wouldn’t have to be in the actual show? And for a horror movie you’d just think ‘ah he kills people, I get it, no need to explain or show’, no, you want him to kill people on the screen, and for people in the movie to be saying and acting like he’s killing people, for it to be a movie. It’s just that simple
>Redditspacer thinks exposition-dumping through one character just talking is engaging
That scans
>"Wouldn't it be bad if (X) happened?"
>X happens
>a character explaining something in a quick few sentences is an EXPOSITION DUMP ALL ON ONE CHARACTER AAAAA HELP ME IM DROWNING IN THESE WORDS
Get a grip
>Spends all thread crying because someone didn't like his poorly-edited show
>"gEt a gRiP"
It’s clunky as frick and ruins the immersion/atmosphere
Let's ask this, stupid <18 year old: WHY did the food issue need explained? What other cartoons stop to explain this? And for that matter, what does that serve other than to pad the scene? At least if he did it before the feast it could have served as a joke, that their prize was actually worthless, but there it serves no purpose other than to explain a part of the world that the audience does not need to know about nor care about. It's poor writing no matter how you put it. And that seems like a minor gripe butghe pilot is full of crap bloat like that.
Mystery Science Theater 3000's opening theme solved this perfectly and actually explained it through a joke: "If you're wondering how they eat and breathe and other science facts (fa la la) You should think to yourself 'it's just a show, I should really just relax.'"
>What other cartoons stop to explain this?
what other cartoons have premises where this concept would come up?
Pretty much every show with a VR element or any show about characters in some otherworldly setting. Or any with animal characters that we never see eat/crap. So, a lot of them.
>Pretty much every show with a VR element
what other shows have as part of their core premise that characters are trapped in a vr setting?
>any show about characters in some otherworldly setting
er, in most of those shows it's either assumed or stated that basic human needs and the fulfilment thereof are the same as in reality
>what other shows have as part of their core premise that characters are trapped in a vr setting?
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WinToExit
>in most of those shows it's either assumed or stated
You're starting to catch on...
>https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WinToExit
most stuff listed there are not series that have as part of their core premise that characters are trapped in a vr setting
>You're starting to catch on...
the point moron is that TADC establishes that in this regard basic human needs are NOT the same as in reality
>most stuff listed there are not series that have
But you acknowledge that there are examples there, so frick off.
>that TADC establishes that in this regard basic human needs are NOT the same as in reality
Oh boy howdy-do yeah we couldn't tell this from one character being made of literal ribbon and a mask...
>Oh boy howdy-do yeah we couldn't tell this from one character being made of literal ribbon and a mask...
are you fricking moronic? do you not understand why fictional settings explain their rules?
Anon, you don't need to explain that they don't need to eat if one of the characters is literally just a ribbon.
to some extent
but then it establishes that
>the characters don't need any sort of digital food or other sustenance to survive
>the characters can eat, but the sensation isn't the same as in real life
>kinger knows more than he appears to at first
>why did the food issue need explained
Because the childlike horror of the setting is that they’re trapped and suffering in this virtual world. That’s the entire point. Avoiding mentioning the suffering and the virtual world is absolutely no priority when the entire project is about letting an audience enjoy that these goofy characters suffer comedically in this twisted retro world. Elucidating the setting and characters is the entire point.
> there it serves no purpose other than to explain a part of the world that the audience does not need to know about nor care about.
Really, so in this world of virtual horror stories, in a setting about people trapped suffering in a goofy digital prison, nobody cares that every character is starving and no food in this world can quench their unending hunger. Is that really what you think? Is that what you said when Barbarossa explained the same thing multiple times in plain English in Pirates of the Caribbean? I doubt it
> joke: "If you're wondering how they eat and breathe and other science facts (fa la la) You should think to yourself 'it's just a show, I should really just relax.'"
A funny quip for a funny show, but some shows are literally Star Trek and some shows are literally about exploring a comedy or horror setting. It matters whether or not prisoners are starving, duh, are you going to shit on Shawshank Redemption or One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest now for daring to spend so much runtime expositing how their settings abuse the characters? Some stories are literally about a prison where people don’t get to eat, it’s that simple, there’s no reason to ask a story not to explain something like that
>Because [gives short essay that doesn't actually answer the question and does the writers' legwork for them]
>so in this world of virtual horror stories
The Circus is not designed as a horror story. The hOrRoR comes from the disconnect between Caine's want to entertain them clashing with Pomni's desire to leave, realizing she can't leave from a world that will unintentionally teak her mind.
>Is that what you said when Barbarossa
...God damn, in your endless drivel I almost missed that.
Barbossa and the cursed pirates are unable to feel anything, stimulated or otherwise. They can't even feel pain. The circus residents can still feel pain and have their senses replicated.
>but some shows are literally Star Trek
I stopped reading right here.
Dude, you're really comparing this algorithm-bait baby show to Star Trek. Do you have any self-awareness?
> The Circus is not designed as a horror story. The hOrRoR comes from the disconnect between Caine's want to entertain them clashing with Pomni's desire to leave,
You mean the horror element comes from the literal writing, intent, execution, and exposition of the setting? It’s dark comedy, obviously you know this because you’re explaining exactly how it is that way, right now. Come on, use your brain
>Barbossa and the cursed pirates are unable to feel anything, stimulated or otherwise. They can't even feel pain. The circus residents can still feel pain and have their senses replicated.
right, and we know this by expositon, which they made sure to do both in Pirates and in TADC because you need to exposit these things for the audience to know them!
>Dude, you're really comparing this algorithm-bait baby show to Star Trek. Do you have any self-awareness?
No, I’m providing the perfect counter example to the claim ‘stories aren’t about exposition or details and you’ve made a mistake if you’re expositing’ by providing a show that used detailed exposition as a main appeal, by showing an example of an audience who does want to know where the food comes from and when they are satisfied with explanations. No, TADC isn’t Star Trek, but in a digital prison, YES ABSOLUTELY it makes a difference if the virtual food is filling, it tells you whether the main cast are suffering and starving or not
They literally went out of their way to discuss how their virtual food works in movies like the Matrix, you’re just wrong in jumping to all these pointless extremes saying exposition and detail don’t belong in media.
>Come on, use your brain
Reading your posts try to sell this crap for more than it is while giving these pretentious essays is doing its work to kill mine braincell-by-braincell...
>right, and we know this by expositon
The difference is that Barbossa's lines punctuate the undead crew around Elizabeth. It's not a needless detail that doesn't need included, it's a reveal of the villain's motives. This type of thing is usually fine since the dialogue actually furthers the story while the scene showcases its relevance to the audience.
Delusional comparison...
>No, I’m providing the perfect counter example
I'm not reading the rest of your crap since you probably have never seen Star Trek. The pre-Into Darkness shit. The shit people remember. The shit that actually knew how to let its audience breath and, more importantly, needed to flesh out everything because of how detached it was from the audience's expected familiar, where-as Circus is just recycled tropes in nostalgiabait aesthetics using a plot that's closer to SAO.
All you’ve done is repeat this mere 15 seconds is worthless and insulting to you as millions of people watch because they’re literally curious. These details add to setting which the audience likes. You’re just not compelling
>REEE shut up its good because a million toddlers watched it?
Anon people get millions of views for playing with superhero dolls. Shut the frick up.
Blippy is great content for his age group
>Redditspacer
well done outing yourself from 2016, or did you come in even later? frick off newbie.
>2016
Unironic tourist meme.
But isn't it obvious? The food is really low poly and unappetising-looking like if it was made out of plastic.
it is obvious but who cares, if they want a character to outright say it that's their prerogative. you don't have to be subtle
And if I want to say that that's stupid and way overkill to the point of souring it, then that's my prerogative.
It would be funny if it was shown later that it's like an involuntary pre programmed line that they're forced to say to introduce new characters (rather than have Caine do it because he's busy making their adventures)
>For me it's "character overexplains something," i.e. Kinger from The Amazing Digital Circus saying, "Well, [you can't really be hungry], because we don't need to eat, drink, or sleep in this digital world, so the digital food here only gives off the virtual sensation of eating, without any of the nutritional benefits."
Because modern writing feels like it needs to over explain everything so there's no subtly or room for interpretation. And yes, I hate it too.
I hate when cartoons reference something from pop culture and the joke is that it's a pop culture reference. "It's funny because it's the family guy death pose, get it?" I really despise that crap.
For me it's
>character saying something they think is funny
>nobody laughs/they look annoyed
>character awkwardly laughs/trails off as everyone glares at them
It just seems cruel. For what purpose? You didn't need to have the character tell a shitty joke at all, or the reaction could be exasperation like when Carlos says a pun. It only works in very specific scenarios like a comedian at a ballroom party full of dour stiffs
why are you assuming that was a joke rather than worldbuilding?
Ragatha already explained that they don't need to sleep, so I was like, "Okay I get it, they don't have the usual needs that come with having a body." To have Kinger restate it seemed superfluous. To be fair, it does serve the purpose of causing Pomni to realize just how horrible the digital world is, but in that regard it's still a dark "joke."
Even if my example isn't a good one, I still don't like that kind of joke.
it's clarification on precise details on their world and a hint that kinger may know more than he's letting on
i thought the purpose was pretty clear
Fair enough.
what said
ragatha stated they dont need to eat and sleep but kigner explaining the rpecise mechanics of it is worldbuilding to clarify he was someone significant in the real world
>he was someone significant in the real world
history will vindicate you are moronic for nit seeing something so glaringly obvious, he was involved with the tech soemhow
Troonworx literally confirmed he's been in there since he was a young child.
not true
Maybe if you're illiterate. moron.
provide source then
bump
The nature of the simulation is the core content to the show’s horror, elucidating on it is core content.
What even is a "virtual" sensation?
all words spoken in a comedy must be a joke
Ha I wonder if you believe this, or even think this show is a pure comedy
>For me it's "character overexplains something," i.e.The Amazing Digital Circus
ftfy
It’s not actually a joke, it’s exposition and detail on the setting’s sense of horror, which is to be trapped in an artificial clown world
>mfw I already know the genre but the work still insists on expositing to me
It's not really a joke, but more of an example of "we didn't have an editor". The exact same point of not being able to eat or sleep was made in Pixar's Soul in like, 15 seconds. Digital Circus took two characters and close to a minute to explain the same shit. The whole short suffered from way too much talking in general. A good editor could've gone through the script and gutted 25% of the repetitive shit.
I think it all works great and the huge audience speaks volumes to that. You can demand the most succinct work you want, but the fact is the point of this show is setting, characters, and animation. This show delivers all of that and it allows fans to think about and live in this world mentally even when they’re not watching. Perfect for fanart and being a fan when not just in front of your computer
>and the huge audience speaks volumes to that
"It has a lot of fans" isn't an indicator of quality. In fact, the masses tend to like garbage as a whole.
>This show delivers all of that and it allows fans to think about and live in this world mentally even when they’re not watching. Perfect for fanart and being a fan when not just in front of your computer
In English, Doc.
>actually a work being successful means it’s a failure, because well idk
>oh by the way I don’t understand enjoying a mood, what do you even mean when you say people remember characters and ideas that made an impression on them, outside of the work, and make characters and scenarios from a piece of media something they like to think about in their daily life. I would never like a piece of media and think about it when I’m not watching it, that’s why I’m on Cinemaphile
Let me guess you hate loud music and crowded rooms too, and always wondering why people would ‘stoop so low’ as to party to a song about partying, and such
Who the frick are you talking to? The voices in your head?
>I BET YOU HATE CROWDS!
Yeah, Black person? Do you enjoy standing in line, too?
>ignores criticism just to talk about how popular show is
I completely explained why this line works in my first post. Will you pull your head out of your ass?
You said
> I think it all works great and the huge audience speaks volumes to that
Which is your opinion and doesn’t actually explain shit. Having a big audience doesn’t excuse bad writing
>a “what now” joke
So you didn’t read the rest of my post then, just like the other guy who couldn’t understand it. I’ll be more clear for you, then
While moment-to-moment flow is important, a huge chunk of creating a new world, setting, and characters for fans to love, is expositing them. You can call it annoying all you want, but spending some of a 20 minute episode expositing the setting and characters, allows the fans to become familiar and directly enjoy what you are trying to communicate to them. Within one episode, or even no episodes, fans are able to see these characters, know them, and remember them in their setting throughout the day for fun. It allows fans to engage with the show beyond just watching the show. It’s part of building an actual fanbase and social scene, and hooking an audience in. You can call it redundant, too simple, or not elegant enough, but the fact is the whole damn project is so kids can enjoy this fake circus world with all its silly memorable characters. So no, whatever 20 seconds you think you can save by removing clear exposition, isn’t worth the extra exposition not being there.
Hey, moron, overexplaining inconsequential details is not worldbuilding.
And being overly verbose is not a substitute for intellect.
>Within one episode, or even no episodes, fans are able to see these characters, know them, and remember them
That's because they're all one-dimensional. They have as much depth as the Smurfs.
>The scared fish-out-of-water
>The mad god
>>His animalistic sidekick
>The jerkass
>The caring one
>The paranoid one
>The stoic one
>is expositing them
Yes and HOW that exposition is done is important so that it doesn't feel amateur. As
said, Soul did the same thing in less time and in a more creative/funny way
The crazy guy in the corner pops off and says something clearly for a second, then he goes back to being crazy. A simple joke, a little played based on how much media you’ve already consumed, but wrong, bad, or any type of problem? No. TADC is a little amateurish because it’s basically made by amateurs, but it’s done a great job pulling itself together and I can’t really say any part of it is a problem or failure
>I think it all works great
You're also an idiot.
>audience
It's a toddler show with bright colors. It's in the same ballpark as those Finger Family videos that get millions of views. That's it's metric. It's babyslop succeeding on a platform that changed its algorithm to serve babyslop to toddlers spending all day on their moms' phone.
> It's a toddler show with bright colors.
Yes, what’s the problem? It’s literally for kids and people who like to be childish. No, before you ask I’m not saying it’s okay for kids to eat shit because kids eat shit, I’m saying something like green eggs and ham is fun for kids because the eggs are green, so why are you sitting here asking the book to stop saying the eggs are green just because it already said so before? It’s an effective simple setting and yes the entire point is to have the characters dance around being and saying they’re in the wacky setting. What’s the problem
>It’s literally for kids and people who like to be childish
Thank you for finally being honest that you're moronic, but please stop trying to sell the rest of us on its supposed depth or try to say the writing's good when you're talking to people with higher standards than Cocomelon.
>before you ask I’m not saying it’s okay for kids to eat shit because kids eat shit
I didn't, moron, and I wasn't going to. I think kids shows can be good. Kids shows can have a lot of depth, and are capable of respectinf their audience, even shows for babies. But this ain't it chief. Over-explanation is insulting the audience since it assumes they're too stupid to figure something out on their own.
And since you seethed out
, I might as well say it here: explaining a lot of things is not the same as over-explanation.
>so why are you sitting here asking the book to stop saying the eggs are green
NOBODY is saying that you schizo homosexual.
Your comparison would be like if the book stopped to give a serious and deadpan explanation of why... I don't know... the fox offered wouldn't eat the eggs. Actually, I can't even say that because the silliness of the situation would be a joke anyway. There's no joke here, it's just a preemptive shield against some kind of CinemaSins-level nitpick that nobody was going to bring up because it's not a problem in 99% of media.
>It’s an effective simple setting
So the characters should shut up and let it speak for itself.
I never said it was deep, dumbass. Not once in any of my posts did I say that, in fact I spent all my time explaining the setting is simple and that that’s ok. Please quit inventing this bullshit in your head. The chess piece said they were starving so the audience would know they were starving. What’s the problem?
> And since you seethed out
>proceeds to write paragraphs explaining your point
Funny isn't it? #,
Wasn’t me. You can start deluding yourself now and lie to yourself I’m lying, I know that’s what comes next
> it's just a preemptive shield against some kind of CinemaSins-level nitpick
Nobody would nitpick ‘how come they don’t say if they’re full or not after they ate the food?’, the idea that the food there doesn’t sate or feed them is actual horror content, it needs to be said in order for it be in the story. Do you really think it doesn’t matter in this goofy horror the characters are starving and the friendly presentation is all fake, to cover up suffering? Because that’s the core point of the setting, the whole reason the setting is what it is, to do friendly circus kid’s software and have it be evil underneath.
> So the characters should shut up and let it speak for itself.
The characters interacting with the setting is the content. Prisoners in a prison. What’s the problem? The show isn’t supposed to be silent and it’s not supposed to be just a still, it’s meant to have characters interact with the setting.
>Please quit inventing this bullshit in your head.
I wish you would have taken your own advice before making any of these autistic essays of yours.
Case-in-point:
>The chess piece said they were starving
No he does not. Just to make sure I wasn't mistaken, I pulled up the scene again. The line OP is complaining about comes from him saying Jax can't be hungry. You are making up bullshit to try to sell the story as more than it is.
>Wasn’t me
Bullshit.
>how come they don’t say if they’re full or not after they ate the food
That's not what you or anyone here was arguing.
>[rest of the paragraph]
All founded on bullshit since he never says they're starving. Their needs are provided.
>The characters interacting with the setting is the content
By overexplaining shit that isn't a problem. Sure.
> No he does not. Just to make sure I wasn't mistaken, I pulled up the scene again.
Yeah he explains the food situation. Wasn’t really inaccurate and doesn’t change the argument. Is this how you argue? With nitpicks and distractions?
> Bullshit.
You’re wrong, and I have the exclusive privilege of knowing that, so if you want to lie to yourself that’s fine but it won’t work lying to me
> By overexplaining shit that isn't a problem
It’s not much of an overexplanation at all, it’s like a 15 second bit, you sperg
>Wasn’t really inaccurate and doesn’t change the argument
You're entire argument was "he neeeeds to say this to convey the horror that they're staaaaarving," when the scene is literally the opposite. Frick off.
>You’re wrong, and [overly-verbose "nuh-uh!"]
k
>It’s not much of an overexplanation at all, it’s like a 15 second bit
That's 12 seconds too long, and, again, and I'll quote myself on this: "that seems like a minor gripe butghe pilot is full of crap bloat like that."
See? Even kept the typo.
Who cares what you think is long, you can set little egg timers for every line of dialogue all you want, doesn’t mean the information exposited is useless especially when you’re saying the entire setting is useless to you in the first place. You’re just mad a show you don’t care about it still talking about itself to you when you’re watching it
>Who cares what you think is long
Bad dialogue is like a bump in the road. If it happens once, you think "what the hell" and move on five seconds later. When it keeps happening, you turn onto another road before your tires pop.
>Implying circusgays are old enough to drive
What really is bad about it? You ‘feel’ like it’s useless, that’s fine, I respect that for you especially since you explained that you’re so familiar with these types of stories, that a rudimentary one explaining a simple detail is just an awful waste of your time, but this is useful information to the audience. Most of them are literally 14 year olds who like this stuff explained because they’re new to the genre. So what
>So what?
Because bad writing should be pointed out before it gets adopted by idiots and repeated ad nauseam. Same shit as capeshit's fetish for tossing in quips.
What’s bad about it though except you don’t care about what’s being said?
It's an answer that didn't need to be said to a question nobody asked.
>um, don't care didn't ask plus you're a troony
Could most Cinemaphile reviews of Amazing Digital Circus be boiled down to this?
This is the first mention of trannies in the thread.
>Interesting features
Frick outta here.
Look I’m sorry if you’re a master of creepypasta and virtual horror settings but a lot of people aren’t, and rudimentary content is completely appropriate for them. The basic real life vs virtual prison thing is a pretty significant, thoughtful idea, it’s no surprise that just by playing it out in a simple way, people who are new to it will catch on and be interested. I see no reason to be offended
It’s an explanation of an interesting feature in a setting liked because of its interesting features
The nature of the simulation is core to the project, people really would be curious about what the food is, and the people who aren’t can still be interested by the new information
>proceeds to go on a manic rant
Sure the 100+ million view show is really suffering without your extensive and certainly articulate screeching.
>t. watches https://youtu.be/ECgvNIAg3uE?feature=shared
thats just exposition done fricking shitty, too bad most modern writers think this is the funniest shit in the world
Modern writers think everything has to be funny. Even in the serious parts, things have to look or move like some goofy shit. Nobody gives comedy room to breathe by letting significant or even mundane moments feel thoughtful in both writing and visuals, so that when the jokes do come, the punchlines actually punch. I've been at full throttle comedy for so long I don't laugh at anything anymore
>I've been at full throttle comedy for so long I don't laugh at anything anymore
i dont think any of us does anymore...
The actual joke was that after that line we get this
>Jax:"Since when were you the expert on the digital world?"
>Kinger:"The expert on the what?!"
Showing how Kinger goes in and out of his sanity like he did throughout the episode.
My most hated joke is your unwarranted obsession with concise writing and total blindness to the fact people actually like to hang out in a scene rather than flee as soon as they get the minimum necessary information
It's just like I'm on Cinemaphile!
For once OP has a good point. Characters overexplaining stuff or generally talking way to much to the point it stops being a part of a joke and becomes the joke itself is super annoying.
That really does capture the "writer puts their self-insert into an episode to do an epic dressing-down of the main character's flaws as some weird impotent power fantasy" thing perfectly
Wouldn't that be the setup, not the punchline?
With more setup from Jax saying "when did you become an expert on the digital world"
And the punchline being Kinger saying "expert in the What Now?!" so the joke more being about how Kinger is not right in the head.
Which isn't an amazing joke either, but its not the type of cliche joke you're making it out to be. Its a different cliche joke of "oh he nutty".
Gumball has this problem a lot
>character a to character b: dude you look like a (long annoying insult)
>character c: no, they look more like a (long annoying insult)
>doesn't like overexplaining
>proceeds to write paragraphs explaining your point
Funny isn't it?
Yes. And the thing is this mistake can be found in even great media. The author knows that 90% of the audience is full of morons that won't understand subtlety and need everything explained to them.
Is clear communication in a work meant to communicate to an audience really a negative, and are people moronic for needing the story to explain itself for them to know what it means? This is literally just what writing is. You can be more subtle or not but what possible problem could you have with something making sure someone knows what he means when he’s trying to communicate with them?
OP, you mistakenly believe that the dialogue was meant to be funny or expository, when really its only purpose is to be the background noise that Pomni ignores as she realizes she's stuck in digital hell forever.
Kinger and Jax aren't even on screen as they have this conversation, and their dialogue fades out as the soundtrack swells dramatically.
Maybe it was just providing insight to the viewer?
This is the most autistic thread on Cinemaphile.
Something about this circus animation really does bring out the 'tism in people. Likely very young people.
Are people genuinely as stupid as OP and all the anons equating this with toddler YouTube slop? ADC isn't my favorite thing ever or even particularly close, but it stuns me how many people on this board seem to be aggressively plebfiltering themselves with it. Like showing up to an IQ test with a baseball bat and trying to murder the proctor, under the impression that this will count as a passing grade. I hope that it's just anons stirring shit about the latest FOTM, and not airing their genuine criticisms.
Why are there so many indie shills on Cinemaphile
as opposed to sucking corporate wiener?
Both are bad gay
all of you are homosexuals
the reason he overexplained everything was so that jax could be like
>jeez since when are you an expert on the digital world
and kinger would be like
>expert on what?
making a humorous joke about how he's weird and crazy
the food issue didn't need to be explained lore-wise for any reason at all
Ok autismo
Remember when this thread was (briefly) about dumb jokes?
TADC honestly broke Cinemaphile
It’s just lore baby, the kids love it
Yeah but here it actually works because Kinger is suppose to be the dumb crazy one so him saying something that makes sense catches you off guard.
It's just a clumsy exposition dump.
None of the jokes in the show are particularly good.
The point is that Kinger knows more about what's going on than others but his brain is too fricking melted to reliably talk about it.
There are a lot of annoying tropes in that show.
>Character does weird thing
*rolls eyes* "Why are you like this"
>No, your other left
>No, your other other left
It's a meta-joke while it shifts the look on Pomni
OP is just moronic
>explains he hates people explaining shit
(You) are the joke
But how will the viewers know how they eat and breathe and other science facts? La la la!
The actual joke is you and how fricking stupid you are, OP.