Why is the
>"It was never good."
Argument so often dismissed when it's just an honest to god truth the vast majority of the time?
Is there no such thing as growing up and gaining perspective?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Probably because no one really studies the effects of when memories are formed and how you remember them later and what emotions they invoke. Nostalgia is practically a drug at this point, one you need in order to see the value in stuff you grew up with as a kid.
If you didn't see it as a kid, or didn't care for it, you'll never get why people who did treasure it as children can still see the fantasy and awesomeness of what it is to be alive as adults.
Because it's used by soulless subversive losers as an excuse to justify making it even worse than originally
I think it’s so bizarre how people kept holding that take or even making fun of people criticizing it.
ywnbaw
Taking a break from crying over blackwashed batgirl, Kevin?
>Why is the
>"It was never good."
>Argument so often dismissed when it's just an honest to god truth the vast majority of the time?
Because it is often a disingenuous unfalsifiable subjective argument to defend the current thing.
Writing quality is subjective?
It absolutely is.
>Plot holes
>Plot contrivances
>Inconsistent characterization
>Inconsistent worldbuilding
>Inconsistent internal logic
>Retcons
These are not objectively bad writing?
Art and entertainment cannot ever be objective, because it is not a quantifiable science. Your "objective" analysis is a contrived series of ultimately subjective rules created by people expressing their opinions on a subject and pseud-ing their way into your head because you crave validation for something that ultimately nobody cares about. I'm sure you like plenty of things that other pseuds like you have called "objectively bad" in the past.
News to me. I guess that
>Plot holes
>Plot contrivances
>Inconsistent characterization
>Inconsistent worldbuilding
>Inconsistent internal logic
>Retcons
Aren't objectively bad writing, even though they blatantly are objective qualities of a work. Might as well throw some shit on a wall and call it art. Enjoy your banana taped to a door. It's not like there's an entire job dedicated to critiquing art or anything like that.
Hey out of curiosity why are you like this?
https://desuarchive.org/co/search/image/7S3k2Gbyv8zFVGybP_XxbA/
>Non sequitur
Make an actual argument, please.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm trying to find out what makes you tick
You started this argument with me. Now answer my question properly. How is there no objective measurement to judge a work from?
>they blatantly are objective qualities of a work
lol
lmao even
While there is truth in the fact that a sufficiently agreed upon opinion holds a validity of its own, it doesn't change the fact that it's a collection of subjective takes on an artform. Objectivity requires a completely unbiased environment of hard numbers and measurements. There is actually no way that something that is fundamentally subjective can ever be objective. Objectivity requires NO biases and NO possible demonstrable counterarguments for it to remain objective. The moment I say I like something that you don't, your "objective" measurements are rendered completely invalid. If you can disagree with it, then it's subjective. That's how it works. You can't "disagree" with gravity, for example, because gravity is an objective truth.
Even then, not all his qualities are objective.
"Inconsistent" is a very subjective measure. And retcons are basically a part of writing, they'll be used if any series goes long enough. They're definitely not "objectively bad."
He also refuses to say where these plot holes are in the original He-Man, or what retcons occured
I wasn't gonna bring it up in my post because it was a sidenote of the point I was making, but listing Retcons as an "objectively bad measure" is a really funny one, not only because it's entirely dependant on context (i.e. retcons within a single work vs retcons across ultimately unrelated works of the same IP) but also because the objectivity of the second case is literally "I don't like it when a thing changes, even if it's not exactly the same work to begin with".
I'm talking about over one piece of work, not your multi billion dollar superhero conglomerate garbage. Pay attention. Everything I'm saying is correct when viewed under the lens of this framework.
>YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE UH UH MARVEL YES
See, anon, what you're doing right now is what us humans call "hilarious".
No I'm talking about a single work written by a single author. Not where hundreds of writers are working on hundreds of different adaptations.
No it is not correct. Not over one piece of work, not over a multi billion dollar superhero conglomerate.
If a work contradicts itself, is that not objectively bad? You can throw as much mental gymnastics towards this as you want. But in the end, it's an excuse for you not to think.
In what sense does it contradict itself? What are you referring to
The example I brought up was the Star Wars prequels. For instance, in the prequels, they show the jedi as wearing the same robes that Ben Kenobi wears in the OT. Except he's wearing these robes to hide from the Empire so they don't recognize him as a jedi. Yet in the prequels, the jedi are recognized as so based on the robes they're wearing. So then why would Ben wear jedi robes when he doesn't want to be caught? It's contradictory and bad writing. I can say that's objectively bad.
1. you never mentioned the prequels in our discussion until now
2. all of that is fan theory and has no basis in the movies
There is not a single scene in Star Wars, Empire, or Jedi in which Ben Kenobi says that he wears the robes he wears to hide from the Empire. Not once does he say anything like that.
Not once in the prequels does a Jedi get recognized as so based on the robes they're wearing.
Your fan theories about Star Wars don't effect that actual writing of the films
I did mention the prequels before. You're just not reading the thread. Ben is explicitly hiding from the Empire because they're wiping out the last remaining jedi and he doesn't want to be caught. He's wearing desert monk robes to hide amongst the population. So why are the jedi wearing the same robes? Why would he be wearing those robes when he doesn't want to be caught?
it was the first time in our conversation you mentioned the prequels
>Ben is explicitly hiding from the Empire because they're wiping out the last remaining jedi and he doesn't want to be caught. He's wearing desert monk robes to hide amongst the population.
Oh he is? Cool!
https://archive.org/details/4K_Project
Here on archive.org is a copy of an original theatrical print of Star Wars from 1977, scanned and rendered in 4K! Please give me the timestamp in which he says this! Thank you anon 🙂
>All of the Jedi wear the same exact desert robes that Ben is wearing
>Ben is hiding out from the Empire to not get recognized as a jedi
>Wears the same jedi robes anyway
Bro, stop.
Cool fan theories bro! I love those. You ever hear the one about how the red R2 unit that short-circuits is force sensitive?
I'm sorry you cannot accept that there's objective flaws in things. If you want to eat shit, that's not my prerogative, but I might ask you to maybe stop for your own good.
Oh there definitely can be objective flaws in things. But your fan theory is not a flaw in the original work. "Star Wars is bad because it doesn't conform to this fanfic I wrote" is a dumb argument
Or how about Yoda and Sidious using lightsabers when they both mock the use of them and are considered guru type characters that don't even need them?
Or how about the Darth Plagueis stuff? Completely retconning what the dark side was in the OT?
They mock the use of them? They say they don't need them? I don't remember that
https://archive.org/details/4K_Project
Timestamps please
Sure, there are some purely technical moments.
Like take a look at webm related: this is objectively a terrible scene. The lighting is technically wrong, the depth is wrong, the staircase is glitching, in addition to actors' noses disappearing.
Skippy the Robot Jedi is awesome, and he died so the Rebels could defeat the Empire. Respect him.
if I went to a ACAB protest dressed as a cop do you think I could get in without anyone realizing I was a cop
legitimate non-sequitor
>If a work contradicts itself, is that not objectively bad?
Depends. Do you think plot twists are "objectively bad" too? Because they rely quite firmly on subverting expectations that were established beforehand.
Well, I can say that the Star Wars prequels are objectively good, because in a vacuum I did not see the original trilogy and I don't care for it. What now, robot-kun?
Then you'd be a complete and utter moron in saying that, and actually the same contrarian you're accusing me of being. Nobody who actually likes films, or is well versed in filmmaking would consider the prequels good movies.
>Nobody who actually likes films, or is well versed in filmmaking would consider the prequels good movies.
And they're within their right to express their um... What's it called? An opinion?
An opinion that's backed up by objective facts about the movie itself. Terrible writing, art direction, and contradicts the OT.
>T. Enjoys banana duct taped to a door.
If there's no objective quality for art, then why try to make art in the first place?
That's some tasty projection for someone who enjoys throwing around terms like "non sequitur" around.
>If there's no objective quality for art, then why try to make art in the first place?
Oh you're an actual robot then, that explains why you don't understand something as fundamentally human as artistic expression. Here, let me try something in a way that you can actually understand:
01000110 01000001 01000111 01000111 01001111 01010100
>He can't actually respond to any of my arguments and proceeds to make a long winded, plebbit tier string of soi bants
If you want an actual debate, you should respond to my arguments properly. There's no audience to get a laugh out of, here.
I did, anon. It's right here
If you decide to ignore it in favor of making the third banana taped to a door joke in the thread, that's on you.
Maybe you should try reading the posts before responding to them?
>Completely unbiased environment
Yes, and in a completely unbiased environment I can safely say that the Star Wars prequels are objectively bad. They contradict the originals, and ruin a lot of characters from the OT. I can objectively say they have bad writing.
The prequels are better movies than you deserve
>plot holes
Yes, plot holes are objectively bad. What plot holes are in He-Man?
>Plot contrivances
Plot contrivances aren't objectively bad. What plot contrivances are in He-Man?
>Inconsistent characterization
Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"? Also, who's characterization is inconsistent in He-Man?
>Inconsistent worldbuilding
Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"? Also, how is the worldbuilding inconsistent in He-Man?
>Inconsistent internal logic
Difficult to judge. This is a subjective standard, what makes something "inconsistent"? Also, how is the internal logic inconsistent in He-Man?
>Retcons
Retcons aren't objectively bad. What retcons are in He-Man?
Holy cope.
>refuses to answer any questions and insteads resorts to buzzwords
*yawn* next thread please
Probably because people don't want to spend hours watching a mediocre 80s kids show.
I didn't ask you to watch anything. Maybe you should learn how to read before engaging in internet arguments
Im not the guy you originally replied to. I just wanted to critisize your opinion that inconsistencies are subjective. Its a completely objective thing. Like if show X determines that protag can only be hurt by water, and later you see him casually taking a swim. That's an inconsistency, you cant deny that.
Sure that's a pretty objective inconsistency, but his criticisms are stuff like "inconsistent characterization," which... what does that mean? How is that defined?
>I thought this character acted out of character in this scene
>I disagree, I thought they acted totally consistently
>It seemed inconsistent to me
>It seemed fine to me
You can go back and forth on that sort of stuff for hours
>>Art and entertainment cannot ever be objective
>no one ever knew perspective
>no one ever knew lighting
>no one ever knew prose
>no one ever required skills of any kind to make a painting or write a poem or make art to begin with
This is what happens when you grow up believing media lies that art can be "anything".
>perspective
>lighting
>prose
>"required skills"
gee I guess Picasso is an objectively bad painter because he didn't apply perspective and lighting to Guernica and every poet in history and every storyteller before the 18th century is objectively bad because they don't conform to your notions of what objective measurements for good art are huh
better grab my time machine and go tell Homer that the Iliad is fricking garbage too
Picasso still had great brush technique and paint mixing skills.
those are some examples of techincal skill
besides cubism is a mastery of perspective but keep adding those reddit spaces my friend I'm sure I'm gonna take you seriously
But like art can be anything, its entirely subjective. Some people like certain types of art but think other types are pure shit. Its nothing but snooty people liking what they like and shitting on what they dont?
if you use a buzzword in your internet argument, you objectively lost my guy
>coping this hard
lmao
>malding and spamming the same buzzword
i mean i can do this too, do we just kill the thread with a chain of buzzwords? Lol
Doesn't change the fact that you are coping.
wait, never mind, I re-read your replies, are you saying Filmation He-Man is good or not? Because if you say it's good I apologize, I got confused. If not, then yeah, keep coping.
Your show sucked rancid shit, Kev.
Has anyone watched the early 2000s He-man recently? Does it hold up?
It's alright. Makes me miss 00s boys action cartoons.
only Skeletor
>Has anyone watched the early 2000s He-man recently? Does it hold up?
It's a perfectly adequate action cartoon. Not one of the greats, but a decent "update" of the franchise that's very much in step with the spirit of the Filmation series.
It also has a dedicated hater on this board who despises it because it's not the equal of BTAS, Teen Titans, Gargoyles, or TMNT '03. He's a complete homosexual and you can safely disregard his opinion on He-Man, cartoons, and matters large and small.
Only the worst of the worst have to resort to attempts to bring other things down to look better, kevin
And if it wasnt good why is it revisited?
It was revisited because corporate executives wanted to revive a popular series. None of that has anything to do with writing quality. He-man was a terribly written and animated shitty kids show.
>popular series
Interesting admission
Popularity has nothing go do with quality. So what's your point?
Yes it was, and remake should have captured this goofy feeling and make it enjoyable, or actually write it good this time
They did neither and are rightfully hated for it
the best thing about Masters of the Universe was the action figures. The cartoon was crap, but the action figures were very creative.
I would rather a cartoon be about a story, not a vehicle to pander worthless consumerism to impressionable and braindead children. But that's just me.
Video Games sell more than Toys these days,
Classic He-Man was terrible!! The show had repetitive and re-used animations, incoherent plot, He-Man rarely fights with his sword, and the best stories seemed to the ones featuring Teela. Seeing He-Man change and say "I have the Power" every single episode got old quick also.
Hey Kevin shouldn't you be making a video of you crying to Thor Love and Thunder or something?
and they somehow made it wosre.
Should i be impressed?
I should print this comment, frame it and show it to my kids and tell them "see kids, this is what a homosexual opinion looks like. You could be sucking dick right now and you wouldn't be nearly as much of a homosexual as whoever wrote this."
If it was never good, Kevin failed to make it better.
Because most of the time it isn't actually true and it's just said by bitter, cynical contrarians who just go against the grain for the sake of it.
McDonald's is terrible and yet it's the most popular fast food chain. Am I contrarian for saying their food sucks?
it dosen't suck. frick you
No, you just have different tastes. As you alluded to, at least one person in the world likes the taste of McDonald's.
ths is not the reason people hate popular things
just to avoid misunderstandings: i'am talking in general and not in the context of he man show
>bitter, cynical contrarians who just go against the grain for the sake of it.
Welcome to Cinemaphile. Enjoy your stay.
Because the Filmation show actually was good, and you’re using it in a dishonest attempt to hold up a bad product. I’ll take Rainbow Warrior, Dragon’s Gift, and Teela’s, Double Edged Sword, and Problem With Power over Revelations all day.
The animation was limited, but the show had plenty of imaginative and fun concepts that it explored better than most 80s cartoons.
*Teela’s Quest
Compared to Robotech/Macross, Voltron, Transformers, GI Joe, Duck Tales, Rescue Rangers, TMNT, Scooby Doo, Garfield, Loony Toons, Smurfs..... He-Man was the bottom of entertainment in kids cartoons
If you actually think any of those outside of Looney Tunes had better writing than He-Man, then you never actually watched it and you’re basing this on pre-conceived notions.
Oh, it’s you again. You write that same thing every time He-Man comes up.
Yet again, just because creators can’t appreciate a product does not mean other people can’t.
why do you gringos fellate Ducktales that much? it's offputting.
And I'm sorry, fricking Smurfs and Scooby-Doo? TMNT had the odd well written scene but overall I can say that one wasn't that well written at all.
Nah, it wasn't actually good. Just like every other toy related property from the 80s, it was a cluster frick of bad writing, overworked animators and shitty writers who didn't want to be there.
There's a reason why animators hated the 80s.
>It was never good
Is defensive cope from someone who can't withstand even the smallest criticism. If you thought it was trash from the beginning, why did you want to be part of it?
Because even still it neither builds upon the original show nor is it good in its own right
I love how Kevin Smith pissed off so many zoomers when he killed off He-Man. You can tell these zoomers never watched the show.
Because if "it was never good" why would it get brought back? Why this IP and not a "good" IP.
The argument itself makes no sense. I don't see anyone doing a reboot of Wheelie and the Chopper Bunch because that show wasn't good?
You do realize that popularity and quality have nothing to do with each other right? That doesn't determine what shows get revived.
So popularity = bad? What if Kevin Man had been popular?
No, you moron. Actually read what I'm saying first. Popularity has nothing to do with quality. That's literally it.
Popularity = Quality
Because "Quality" is in the eye of the beholder ergo irrelevant. Having a large audience is what matters which is why lesbians riding bicycles never took off.
Actually it just means how many people went to go buy your product and absolutely nothing more than that. It says nothing about the quality of a work. McDonald's is the most popular fast food place, do they have the best burgers?
No Wendys has better burgers. McDonalds is close though
Stop dancing around the question. Does McDonald's being the most popular mean that they have the best burgers? You actually conceded already, but I just want to hear you do it again.
I just answered the question
>McDonald's doesn't
So you concede that they aren't the best burgers based off of your own criteria? You just said that popularity = quality.
You know they compete on this, right? Maybe if I said some obscure little rinky-dink burger place, but Wendys is gonna overtake McDonalds soon
Mmm, you're making me want a nice baconator with a pink lemonade
>Another non sequitur and dodge
McDonald's is currently the most popular one. You've stated that popularity equality. You've now conceded that by stating that another fast food place that isn't as popular has better food. Stop being a moron and actually think about the moronic shit you say before you spout it out.
They brought He-Man back because of the strong following toy collectors had with the vintage toys and re-issues of the vintage toys. It was about selling more toys and making a good enough cartoon to help market the newest toys.
I would rather a cartoon be about a story, not a vehicle to pander worthless consumerism to impressionable and braindead manchildren. But that's just me.
I've re-watched Kevin Smith's He-Man at least 10 times and I want to see more. The original Filmation He-Man I can barely sit through one episode.
Never watched Kevinshit
Never watched Dyke-ra
This whole thread is funny because OP has admitted he hasn't seen the original and is just guessing that it's probably bad, and he's arguing with a bunch of people who haven't seen these remakes. So it's just a back and forth between people who don't know anything
Mosquitara and Webstor look great and I'll definitely buy their toys, but they were so underutilized. It's disappointing season 2 didn't do much with its new characters.
There's this guy on one Transformers Group, who, when I made a small joke about one of the animation mistake in one G1 episode... Went absolutely apeshit in defense mode, that it's not true, and I was watching some botched copy, and it was always perfect, and how dare I talk like that about his childhood cartoon!
...some people are just manchildren, who never grew up, m'kay?
actually I think for some fricked up reason they redid a bunch of episodes and they came out worse for one of the DVDs?
The Rhino DVDs are infamous for having even more errors, yeah.
So the reason they have more errors is because the original broadcast masters had degraded, but the pre-broadcast tapes hadn't, so they decided to use those.
Props to the Shout! DVDs because at least these attempted to fix some errors. I think one episode did come out looking worse but it was overall a better release than Rhino's.
>HEH, YOUR STUPID CARTOON WAS NEVER GOOD. HOW YOU LIKE THAT MANCHILD CHUUUUD AHHAA!
>'Fair point, also Clerks was never good'
>NOOOO YOU CANT SAY THAT! IM SELLING CLERKS 3 TICKETS RIGHT NOW! ITS GOING TO BE LIKE CLERKS TWO!
>AAAAAHH HELPME WEINSTEIN! MANBABIES ARE AT MY DOOR AAAAAH
have a nice day kevin.
Why is Cinemaphile obsessed with defending terrible reboots?
Don't blame Cinemaphile for this, you dingus. OP is either Kevin or one of his shills still trying to do damage control for the show since they've got a new season coming up.
They're better off going onto Youtube and throwing a fit in the comments of Clownfish's videos.
People use it as a "gotcha" defense instead of a surgical criticism of an argument that makes the original out to be something it never was. It works well when someone argues shit like:
>nu wars doesn't have all the subtle intricacies that the OT had. the OT was thoughtful with every detail, and explored a post-war antebellum intergalactic period where they're still rebuilding from the Clone Wars. nu wars just wants to jingle keys in front of a toddler so onionsboys pay money and CONSOOM
>star wars was never good
but fails and becomes a moronic fricking statement when it's used as if it somehow invalidates the entire argument:
>nu ppg is just people flaunting a beloved ip in order to cash into nostalgia-baiting controversy and none of them give a shit about PPG
>ppg were never good, this argument is pointless
It really is this fricking simple. There's just as many people intentionally misusing it to stir shit as there are morons who genuinely think it's a valid catch-all.
If something wasn't actually that good, why is it wrong to just say so? This just feels like an incredible about of cope backed up by flimsy nostalgia and that you don't want to accept that these things weren't actually as good as you thought.
Because the first argument addresses someone who is claiming the OT is this masterclass in world building and treating it like a sci-fi Gone with the Wind (As if that itself is classic lit just because it's 'classic lit') and is talking out of their ass. The response cuts through all of that bullshit and makes it clear that the "nu wars" is no fricking different in terms of direction, goal, and heavy abuse of "rule of cool". It doesn't intend to kill the discussion entirely, but it does force that particular segment to be dropped because it's a blatant fricking lie.
The second point is someone who has a valid point about "nu ppg" because that is precisely what it was and the people behind it outright admitted to it. The response that follows fails to follow the objective flow that the first example has, and instead tries to dismantle the entire argument instead of cutting the chaff of bullshit it's claiming exists.
Didn't Smith chide Lucas for the prequel trilogy but praised the sequel one?
What a tasteless piece of shit.
It's all relative. You have to judge a show by it's competitors. What had already existed when it came out and existed as it ran. What were these other great action cartoons around when MotU came out? It did some things well. Kids enjoyed it and fondly remember it decades later. It had a pretty original sci-fi/fantasy setting. A lot of the toyetic character and setting designs looked cool.
As for Revelations it could have so easily been loved with a handful of differences. Of course the art and animation was way better than the original series. But none of that matters when the creator lies to fans and the first season kills the hero people have been waiting decades to see a revival of twice, barely includes him, and focuses on an unlikeable character who has no appreciation of his sacrifice.
If you take a bad old thing trying to revitalize it and fail at it so hard that you have to resort to "it was never good", then you're admitting your writing skill impotence.
Because if it's genuinely true, it's just as much as a concession. It means you have no stake or standard to compare it to, and the language seems to imply it's not currently good ether.
It's essentially a fence sitting comment.
>Look guys, I understand it's not good now. But that's okay because it wasn't good then ether.
I mean it's pretty dismissive of itself, don't you think?
I find the usage of 'IT WAS NEVER GOOD' to be a lazy hand-wave. When a piece of media enters meat-space people will have there own personal takes on it, if it becomes good then people would usualy hold it near and dear to them. If its bad then depending on the person they would love it in there own weird way.
But to take a piece of media that was faulty, claim that you absolutely love and adore it, claim to re-make it "for the fans" into something everyone would appreciate as well. Then produce a gigantic piece of shit and say 'It WaS nEvEr GoOd' and was also caught saying they never loved the media, well I can just toss there opinions in the trash.
Not watching She-Ma'am
>"It wasn't good before"
Is a fine argument.
>"It was never good"
Is some last ditch scorched earth shit where you are throwing out your own argument with the opposition's.
Literally the same mentality as saying:
>Whatever, the game sucks anyways
when you lose.
/co/, just out of curiousity what are the reboots that you think are actually good and what do you like about them?
Pic related for me
>expands on characterizations
>does a great job at establishing how threatening the Mysterons are.
>balances campy idea of a super-secret spy organization wearing multi-colored outfits with spy thriller elements and does it pretty well
I've seen both series and I think 2005 is a very good way to reboot things. Of course Captain Scarlet's original creator was behind both, so he knew what he was doing.
Pic fell off.
X-Men Evolution was fine.
Shin Mazinger is better than the original manga and anime.
I actually think the CG He-man is pretty decent.
Based
Based quads of the one absolute truth.
And huh, preeeeetty funny this show has no controversy even though they made Tee-La black and made her Sorceress right off the bat. It's almost as if they made a good show that people enjoy...
The CGI He-Man show is actually good. It does its own thing, yet at the same time captures a lot of the spirit of the original show. It doesn’t feel like a soulless fanfic like Revelations.
Black person, I watched Filmation He-Man for the first time in the 2010's and I was over 18. The show is still pretty good and you are a homosexual.
I'm convinced it's one anon making these MOTU Revelations threads and unironically shilling for Netflix
>it was never good
>it's current year
>it lacked representation
>it was for kids so it was bad
>but also I am a big fan of the IP and think its very important it gets rebooted so I can take your mone- I mean take on the mantle of guiding this treasured franchise
>This is my chance to fix it
Biggest red flag in any reboot.
This looks so much gayer than the original He-man, I bet He-man and Skeletor frick in the first episode in front of all the other characters as fanservice.
>I bet He-man and Skeletor frick in the first episode
Worse, they get cucked by weaker females
The reason why the women in He-Man: Revelations look masculine is because Kevin Smith is too much of a pussy to have them be muscular men with feminine traits.
>You don't like reboot?! But reboot is accurate to the show and lore that I know! It's the perfect continuation!
>It's not because [reasons]
>No! Reboot will be better.
>Reboot is shit and shat on.
>Noooooo Reboot good!
>It's not.
>F...FRANCHISE WAS NEVER GOOOOOOD!
It's for the b***h-made.