On the topic of Pomni's personality when she's not having a panic attack... I really wish the first episode had started with Pomni not realizing she was stuck in a game. She thinks it's just a really advanced VR game with revolutionary AI, so she goes along with everything she's presented with. And none of the other characters wanna burst her bubble and tell her it's not actually a game. So because of that, we have a while to get to know Pomni when she's just checking out something she thinks is a novelty. Maybe she makes fun of how cheesy everything looks, maybe she interacts with the characters, trying to test out the limits of the NPC AI, not knowing they're actually alive... Maybe she's messing with them a bit to show she can be playful and curious. Or maybe she makes fun of the kiddy aesthetic, finding it beneath her. Once she's had time to react to things naturally and interact with the world a bit, THEN Pomni could try to take off the headset she thinks she's wearing, realize she can only take off her jester cap, and THEN she could have the expected mental breakdown. Not only would this have given a better chance to get to know Pomni, it also would've given the horror themes time to slowly creep up and foreshadow themselves. It even presents a lot of opportunities for "if only she knew" jokes, which would be even stronger on a second watch. But instead, the moment we see Pomni, she's immediately in panic mode, and the "you'll never escape" theme is immediately in full force. But I dunno. Maybe they want panic and existentialism to be her default state. Maybe it's supposed to make it more special when she learns to cope with the horror and her natural personality has a chance to come out finally.
Your comparison of indie animation scripts to "term papers" made something finally click in my mind, and now I'll never watch Vivziepop the same way again.
I’d actually like to hear you disassemble and reassemble Helluva Boss/Hazbin Hotel and it’s witting. It’s THE example of an indie show moving over into being part of the traditional animation industry (sending work over to overseas studios), and sparks discussion on the quality of the writing. There’s definitely a lot more to work with behind three episodes, and I think it would be fun to listen to.
I'm surprised at how much I learned from this, thank you. One small thing: Monkey Wrench is still alive as of this comment, its fourth episode is just going slow. That's all I know.
I’m a big fan of these longer form audio videos, they’re great for my day to day life. That being said though I think you’re missing a large component to TADC’s success, that isn’t children. It’s international audiences. From what I’ve seen TADC is far bigger in Japan than it is here, so much so that they’ve already opened up character cafes for the show. That probably goes for other countries as well, but the only place I’ve witnessed a traditional “fandom” for TADC is in Japan. Please excuse me if this paragraph is a bit hard to follow, Covid is taking my brain cels out back and shooting them this week.
Yeah some of the best content I've found. Is unscripted rants but only from people who are capable of making amazing well thought out content, and generally averse to the rants paradoxically
I’m glad that you try to be respectful to all of these indie projects when criticizing or just generally talking about them. When considering the characters, I think the difference is from the amount of screentime each one gets- Ragatha and Caine and Jax have a decent amount of screentime each episode, while Zooble and Kinger and Gangle have less screentime each episode, which is confirmed by Gooseworx consistently confirming on her tumblr what character each episode “focuses” on, meaning that you sort of have to wait for each character to be filled out beyond their surface level interpretations in their respective episode. Good video, your thoughts are interesting to hear!
I mean, if Greg still doesn't understand Kinger as a character because he sees exposition as purely anathema to characterization, then I don't think he's gonna understand any of the characters.
yeah I've been saying that to my friends that the show is basically "jr's first existential crisis" which is FINE we just gotta be honest about it and how it's not like, a Pillar of writing quality.
I see what you’re saying. Your right, we don’t really know how Pomni would act in random scenarios were she not panicking. I can’t say the same about kinger but there is a lot we don’t know about the characters despite having three episodes.
If I may come to the defence Monkey Wrench, since I'm a fan of that one in particular and you took the time to mention it; I personally think we get enough personality from the three episodes we got so far. From the top of my head without rewatching all episodes again, I can say remember this much: Shrike is the immature one, impulsive and childish. He's not good with money, given that he's in debt to a greedy space-cat AND wastes the money they were gonna use for artifical gravity, something practical, to instead use it on a paint job. One could also say his fascination with cartoons and junk food also reflects this immature personality. He's a trickster, not being afraid of lying to others or fighting fair (like when he fooled Scratch, aka said space-cat, in ep 1, or fought against Kara) He's also emotional, easily angered and not afraid to show it (again, him giving the finger to Scratch in ep 1: "Amigo THAT, pendejo!", or when he got pissed at their client), and often tries to joke away certain things or at least pretend like he doesn't take them seriously. At the same time, he's not entirely heartless, perfectly willing to stand up for little guys in ep 2. We do also get that he has some history with the L.A.W.-guys and do not think fondly of them, which might be justified seeing as how autoritarian they've been hinted as. In short, what you might call a "Jerk with a heart of gold". We also see that, despite all this, he's still a capable combatant, so he doesn't fall in the "funny loser character who talks big but actually sucks at what he does"-character. Beebs, on the other hand, strikes me as the more mature and put-together of the two, the grown-up big brother type to balance out Shrike. Willing to take stuff more seriously but still not a total stick-in-the-mud, as seen when he promises that they can get Scratch's favourite pizza or joking along with him in ep 2. Still, he's no push-over, not afraid to put his foot down if needed. He's also seems a bit more sensitive and social, given that he knows how to play the guitar and tries his best to actually communicate with/help the "ghost" in ep. 3. (also, while he is big, I cannot for the life of me remember any "fat"-jokes in any of the episodes so far...? Or even references to him being fat...?) Like I said, that's what I can remember just from memory. And from the previews of the next episode, it would seem that we're delving even further into Beebs personality and past (yes, there's gonna be a 4th episode). While I can't say I disagree much with your critique of TADC, ain't nobody gonna come here and talk smack about Monkey Wrench on my watch without me having a say in it!!! (j/k)
As someone whose actively trying to write her own comic I’ve scrapped many draft’s already for reasons such as characters doing things for no proper reason. The plot going too fast things being exposition heavy. While I understand that characters are the most important part to writing it’s currently the hardest thing i find to get write like now I could probably figure out How My main character would react to any given situation she is but inherently trying to show that still a struggle. Overall i’d like to say it was nice watching this video and hearing your thoughts
I rewatched that scene from episode 2 to make sure I wasn't remembering things wrong, and Gummigoo was already in the middle of an existential crisis by the time it cut away. He was hyperventilating and Pomni was trying to calm him down, as I'd expect from what I understand of her character. Gummigoo knew something was wrong because he couldn't remember his mother's face, and that the person he was stuck with was clearly special for not having an asset in that room and knew more about what was going on than him because she said he's an NPC. So it would make sense for him to ask her what was going on. Something we already knew so we didn't need to see. All we skipped over was the exposition you keep saying the show only knows how to write. When we cut back to him we see how he's reacted, basically shutting down while he processes what he learned. It makes sense that he'd just accept it instead of lashing out because of all the evidence but not really know how to deal with that reality. Pomni works to pull him out of that by forging an emotional connection. Frankly the conversation they have feels pretty natural to me. The cutting off of that relationship being further developed is the tragedy and the comedy of the ending. It also characterizes Caine as not being suited for the task he's been given by casually causing that trauma. There's also a shot for a second of Jax showing just through his expression softening that he probably either wanted to join Caufmo's funeral or perhaps comfort Pomni, or both, but it passes in a blink. If he did go it'd probably break through his armor too much and everyone would know why he's putting on the act of being so abrasive.
Yeah I agree w a lot in the video but the argument that cutting away from some emotional peaks is bad writing, is always so flimsy. 9/10 times, that scene resumes where it left off emotionally. Cutting to a b plot or whatever is just a way to pace out the emotion and overall tone of the episode. Imo whether you think this is good or not is more about personal taste.
Honestly, whether you agree or not there is considerable and even important stuff to learn from this video if you wanna make your own series, movie, game, or anything regarding making your own property for others to watch if you want the audience to feel good thinking about and getting inspired for sure I appreciate the calm nature of your explanation
Bro how do u watch dawn somewhere too. I see you in like all the comments sections of all the channels I watch, but Greg is like completely unrelated to the rest of them.
@@bradthunderpants3283 I came for the ponies and stayed for the tightly-written comedy. Been watching since 2016 iirc, what type of videos do you see me commenting on? I'm a bit chronically online youtube so specifics would help lol
@@LoneFifteen Charles Carroll. Like west, dbdr I think. Do you watch any of those? And yeah I also love Greg. He's one of the best writers of our era, while I find this series in particular to be a flop.
I can tell you "everyone's a writer" is very very incorrect. How people, especially yourself, write such vivid and clear characters through their dialogue and actions is absolute black magic to me.
With a lot of these indie projects. It almost always has the same flavor. Like it's written to be like corporate projects, only edgier. I often feel like an opertunity to make something wholly unique, is lost, when they attempt to follow the rulebook for showmaking. At the same time, the influence of the creators becomes quite obvious, in the little ways they deviate from the norm. I wish I knew how to explain it well. It sort of feels like somebody tried to dig a water hole, that's not as deep as a lake, but deeper than a river. And not as long as a river, but longer than a lake.
Good video! It's interesting to hear you disassemble the show's character writing like that. I feel like it's generally important to dissect cases in media that induce the thought "Well, it's not awful, but is that really the best way to use the limited screentime?"
So, I checked Inside Out 2, and the way Anger tells Joy to pony up is by speaking softly while gently offering his hand. So how does Anger react to learning he is not real? Imagine him dead silent, or indifferent, or joyful even, or shedding his first tears ever, or in pure rage, or denial, or completely lost... Everything works. Or let's turn the question around. Imagine if in Inside Out 2, Anger had acted like Anger: telling Joy to get back up the only way an angry person knows how, by playing the drill sergeant and shaking her like a tree. Just imagine how well that would have gone. In other words, when you ask who would win between the Star Wars empire and Kerrigan's brood from Starcraft, that's a fun exercise but one where you are forced to abstract the setting. Because in the Star Wars setting Kerrigan and her brood don't have the force, can't have the force and are therefore doomed to fail, per the script; and in the Koprulu sector the Empire's whole fleet, death star included, is fated to follow the path of the Earth expeditionary corp, because that's how it works. It's not the character in a vacuum, it's the character in a context, and if the context has no impact on the character -- and I'm not just talking about "the range of emotions" -- then you get a disjointed mess. If you put Anger in TADC, he better act like a TADC character.
I think Anger being able to talk calmly about refusing to quit is a good example of the character having "range", and not a good example of fiction or characters having no rules. If you put Anger in TADC he acts like Anger. He can express a range of feelings, but if he acts out of character then he's out of character. And besides, in fanfics about the Zerg fighting Darth Vader, the fic writer usually goes out of their way to establish how Zerg psionics interact with the Force, or if it does at all.
@@Dawnsomewhere Actually they just assimilate the Star Wars whales. Point remains. Anger acting angry in that scene would wreck everything. So he can't act angry. Hence his "range", because the script requires it. And you come up with excuses like "oh Joy is his best friend" and whatever. Then you can make the same excuses for him when he discovers he is not real. It's not reaction(character), it's reaction(character, context). There are rules, there are in fact more rules than just the character's.
I just mean you can't have Anger be "angry" 100% of the time, or else it would really limit what you can do with the character. That's why Joy also has moments of self-doubt, or even of sadness. Being angry is Anger's center, but he's allowed to drift off that axis as the scene requires it. It's like an electron blob, or something. A character is generally going to be within a specific valence range of behavior, and if you find them in an orbital they wouldn't normally be in, then something weird or special is going on. Otherwise there'd be no meaningful difference between Yogi Bear and Shinji.
@@Dawnsomewhere Weird or special like not existing. But we're basically saying the same thing at this point. Now obviously Yogi Bear can't get depressed overnight and Shinji can't recover and hunt picnic baskets on a whim. But Yogi would die if he tried his salesman attitude in an Eva cockpit, and good luck staying apathetic in that park, with that ranger and the lil' supportive brother. Yogi would be salesman+breakdown and Shinji would be a wreck+comfy. What comes out of this equation is how Anger should react. I would just advise you to not think of it in terms of "character variance" but rather in terms of "character in context". Never neglect the setting.
These are nice. And thank you for putting into to real words why the show kept feeling /fine/ yet kinda off. I always feel like my brain picks up on these structural things yet just has no idea how to formulate it coherently so the whole experience with ends up being a ??? feeling about the piece of media.
Imo, for a show, the success mostly depends on its lore and worldbuilding, and the potentials for fans to explore and build upon. We saw this with FIM, with Murder Drones, with Hazbin Hotel, and with The Digital Circus itself at the pilot. Characters, if done well, is a good bonus. But what really draws fans in a show is that it gives them something to discuss, to speculate, to imagine, to make theory and write fanfics and draw comics, etc.
Enjoyed the video/podcast and I will say that I think your writing is definitely one of your stronger skills especially when characters are talking to each other. There’s a reason I rewatch the mech warrior let’s play at least once a year. I say this because I think there is still value to take from digital circus. If it’s that projects that start on TH-cam need expressive animation and be kid friendly then that’s still good to know. Perhaps it’s that every show needs some mystery element to entice other TH-camrs to make their own videos talking about it. I think about digital circus the way I think about cartoons that I watched as a kid. Not all those cartoons were as good as the stuff that came later, but it was necessary for the earlier stuff to exist because what came after built on the good will generated from the previous projects. And it’s not a quality thing that gets built on, it’s convincing people with money to fund increasingly riskier projects. Anyway, good video. I enjoy the writing talk.
Did you make this whole video because I commented "I don't get the joke" on the modest digital circus? Well for 1 I just wanna say you're out of your mind, you are an amazing comic writer. Stebe boy hotdog is one of my favorite things ever. And I'll elaborate on my criticism I guess. I didn't get that "let's flesh out these characters into characters" was what you were going for at all, so the whole thing seemed to have that vibe to me of those 2012 TH-cam animations just ripping off a popular IP for views. But you know doesn't actually exist for a reason. the "dude what if instead of pokemon it's Toke-mon and they're smoking weed" and than the animation is just Pikachu with red eyes throwing up and stuff for 3 minutes. And I went into it expecting like a parody that says something about the amazing digital circus, kind of like MAS was. Oh and also I would really like to touch on the exposition thing. Greg you don't do nearly enough exposition. The focus on only character dialogue often leaves the viewer, or the players in your roleplaying games having no idea why things happen. Like I remember you talking about the skellingrim campaign and "the players didn't know X and Y factso they made this stupid decision" but like. X and Y was only ever in your head the characters you played as the DM made decisions based on those facts but I wonder if the players at the end of that game ever even knew X and Y or if they just kind of vaguely knew stuff happened. But anyways idk I think it's a fine show. Obviously pandering to kids but I like it about as much as I liked say season 1 of Rick and Morty. I'm surprised ep 2 and 3 didn't get bad from being in production hell like most web series.
It interesting, the point of them appealing to kids when I think gooseworx has made posts making it seem like they don’t like that it appeals to kids so much
I just wrote a book that's like a super dense literary fantasy kind of thing, with a lot of meta textual commentary on role-playing games and things like that, I had to make peace very early on with the idea that the only way I would be able to publish this book at all would be going through amazon There are no Independents anymore
You could say this is a nitpick, so I'm going to start with: I largely agree with you on this video. There are a couple minor points I don't agree with, but that's going to happen, yadda yadda, moving on. The only thing I really wanted to correct you on is that the character from Inside Out that you referred to as Depression is actually Sadness. You might think this is a nitpick, and by all definitions it is because it ultimately doesn't change the point of your video, but it does bother me because part of the entire crux of the movie is that Sadness isn't the same as depression. Sadness is an emotion that aids in the processing of negative memories and experiences so that the other emotions can do their jobs. Depression is a lack of emotion (or a lack of variety in mood, sometimes referred to as being unipolar), either purposefully or accidentally, that can either cause or be caused by a lack of healthy processing of negative memories and experiences. In movie terms, Sadness is the character that gets sucked out of HQ with Joy, whereas depression is the event where the main console turns grey and becomes unresponsive. TL;DR I get that calling Sadness "Depression" was an accident, but it is important to the movie and characterization to recognize that the two are very different things.
As someone who works in a public school you would not believe the amount of unlicensed TADC merch I see being carried around by grade school kids. There's some pockets of older fans but I think gen A are carrying this show for the most part.
That sounds pretty solid, a bunch of times I was thinking your wrong but I see your point. I think a lot of it comes down to what they can do, and who they are as a studio, budget is a big one so you have to make sacrifices for the sake of money and time. I think a point you are missing is that this will be a self contained story and not a series beyond the set episode list, like it’s a tv movie, it’s all one big movie split up over small sections that are put out on a schedule. Also I think you might be judging characters that have had more screen time than on TADS, which I think ties back into the need to consider it one big movie and not individual episodes with each plot. But I completely agree that they could have done way more for character building but I’m waiting to see how it all comes together non the end. I would actually compare this to the cartoon series, over the garden wall, each epesode was like a mini adventure but tiring it all in together mage an amazing story but it did have better writing for characters each mini adventure.
Opinions on the main point aside, besides maybe a select few that turns up with each episode premiere from semi-popular artists on twit (not counting fnf mods), I also dont see a lot of fanart from the target audience now that you mention it. Its either insignifigant general fanart (usually feom the younger crowd) or nsfw art, when other fandoms make things within all spectrums
As long as you are analyzing Digital Circus, have you had the opportunity to look over Glitch's previous show Murder Drones? It's pretty unique when it comes to animated shows, indie or otherwise. My first watch-through I binged the whole thing and ended up having mixed feelings on it, but upon rewatches it forced me to sort of reconsider some of my preconceptions about like... writing in general? Like how one can take advantage of the platform and release schedule of show available to everyone on the internet, and the benefits and drawbacks of writing specifically for lore enthusiasts who are able to rewind and pause on every frame (since it's available for everyone on the internet) for the months between episodes vs a casual audience that will almost certainly get left behind, haha. Might be cool to hear your thoughts on it sometime if you ever get around to seeing it. Cheers dude. Always enjoy hearing your well constructed thoughts on stuff.
First episode was promising. Second episode was alright, still overall pretty good. Third episode made me think "I don't think I'm going to keep watching."
U got crap taste my guy, tha third episode is tha best & tha most fully realized/well-developed & structured so far. Tha first ep was a decent but flawed debut & tha worst episode thus far is prolly tha second, as it tries to do too much in tha A plot & doesn't do enough in tha B story
RD presents was wonderful indeed. So, you two wrote Sinking Ships together then? I might check out the digital circus at some point just to see what it's about.
I think the thing with Zooble is that they're either a: establishing her as a body/gender dismorphia character Or b: setting up her issues as forshadowing for her eventual abstraction
There's another show called "Set sail for Candy" released at about the same time as TADC and had just as good animation, but even now it sits at about 70K views The whole "nothing is independent" makes sense
If you're looking for memes/art: that exploded after the pilot, so if you haven't seen "anything," then I would say you're out of the loop. I will say, it hasn't been nearly as crazy since the pilot, though.
I agree! I haven't gone into detail with my friends who get a lot of emotional value from the show, but I find a lot of the dialogue really cheesy when it's being said between paragraphs of exposition on both sides. It causes the emotional revelations and pep talks to feel a little jarring and phoned in because they weren't earned- they just went through the motions of earning them and called it a day. I like what they've set up and I enjoy watching it, but when someone asks me to review an episode I find myself wanting to deconstruct everything that I found lacking instead of going through everything I enjoyed. Which,, means the things i enjoyed didn't have much staying power I suppose.
Greg, I like you and all, but this is one of the most cartoonpilled takes in history. The throughline of all of the TADC characters is how they deal with loss of control. Ragatha is the team mother because she gains satisfaction by helping Pomni cope with her situation as a form of mutualism (and probably projection). Jax is the asshole because he's dealing with the loss of control over his life by asserting his will over the others as a bully. Kinger is just straight up traumatized by the death of a thousand cuts of living life in the circus, (probably) being responsible for the creation of the circus, and survivor's guilt, and he expresses that trauma as having contracted some form of dementia and literally hiding in a pillow fort to gain control over his environment by changing it to be more comfortable. Gangle is overcome by her own depression which is literally manifested as the mishaps that happen to her comedy mask, and may also be an allegory to self sabotage inherent in mood disorders like bipolar. Zooble is probably the worst of this because their story is just straight up shoehorned in, but they represent never having had control of their own life and therefore becoming the naive realist pseudo-Daria of the group. Pomni is also a fairly realistic "self-insert" character, as her natural instinct in ep1 is to escape at all costs, and then she transitions to learning about the other characters and how they cope with their loss of control, and empathizing with the traumatized survivors while still being the awkward outsider "new friend" to an established friend group. Furthermore, none of this has anything to do with why TADC became popular or will remain popular. TADC became popular because its design appeals to the lowest common denominator, and it's easily digestible while not immediately alienating more advanced viewers. TADC could easily survive with writing that was maybe 20% worse and would still end up being Glitch's most successful run. The thing everyone should take away from TADC is that as long as you build initial momentum quickly and continue with consistent output (Homestuck, most multi-season TV shows like Supernatural, etc) it doesn't really matter if your show declines in quality, the momentum will carry it so long as you don't subvert the expectations of the viewership too much at once, and viewer churn doesn't really matter so long as it does not overcome momentum. Consistency is king, and Greg has erroneously presented that as it were writing advice rather than advice for creating a product to be consumed.
@Fronzel41 To be honest, I expect to eat shit on this, but I think the entire premise of the season is to present them as archetypal characters (through the lens of their mental disorders) and then expose them as having underlying depth by challenging them to run contrary to their nature. My criticism of Greg's criticism is that he completely failed to identify the basic mechanics of the characters because he's looking at it as a cartoon where every character serves a mechanical purpose and the writing needs to be tight, where what it actually is is candy coated psychological horror, juxtaposing a ridiculous cartoon logic premise with its very real traumatic effects. It's basically I Have No Mouth done in reverse. In I Have No Mouth, the character's pasts are revealed through juxtaposition with the torture AM has crafted individually for them, whereas in TADC character depth is revealed through how they end up being accidentally triggered by the innocuous cartoon scenario (which makes me suspect I'm going to eat shit, because I think Jax is next, and his juxtaposition is that he can't do self serving cartoon hijinx as a fast food wagie, and I don't see a path to revealing Jax's 'hidden character depth' without destroying the character). The B plot of the digital circus is always "here's this wacky adventure guys," and the A plot is then "here's this scenario where Pomni is forced to learn about another member by going through their accidentally perfect traumatic trigger with them." Episode 1 and Episode 2 perfectly characterized Pomni as a normal person who is extremely overwhelmed but ultimately a mild and empathetic person, where Episode 1 sets her up in an unkind light to establish the premise, Episode 2 deconstructs the setup of Episode 1 by establishing her baseline character without the fight or flight response that caused her to hurt Ragatha, and showcased the uncaring cruelty of the Circus as a character. Gummigoo was literally the cruelty of the Circus as a narrative device, and the reason underlying why Gummigoo's character development from an NPC to a sapient individual undergoing existential crisis was completely internal was because Gummigoo as a character only mattered to how he effected Pomni. Episode 3 is then the "business as usual" episode where the premise of the show has already been fully presented. Greg's advice for making something to be as successful as TADC is just specious nonsense. Partly, it's because he doesn't understand the underlying premise of the show (and probably because he is too cartoonbrained to imagine good character writing without immediately turning to the crutches of high throughput corporatized writing). But mostly, it's because he himself is not a very good writer and that he falls into the trappings of the writing advice given to amateurs of "show don't tell, keep your writing tight, every character should be easy to understand" and when he's presented with something that falls out of his preferred orthodoxy, he completely loses his bananas and fails to grasp the basic mechanics of the work and ends up getting frustrated to the point of producing the most base, low effort takes possible. His points about the monkey show I did not watch are also probably total nonsense, unless it's bad, and if it's bad, then pretend it's not for the sake of argument because I'm not going to watch it. What I was trying to underscore is that making a successful product and writing well are two separate goals that really have no overlap at all. There is a triangle trade between audience capture, technical merit, and continuous exposure, and success as an "indie" is almost exclusively biased somewhere between audience capture and continuous exposure. Your show is never going to fail because you failed to satisfy some silly checklist from a beginner writing book, and the juxtaposition Greg presents between "don't copy TADC's writing style because it is bad" and "this funny monkey show failed because it ran out of money" is misleading and juvenile.
@@beea4401 I think your analysis of the structuring of the episodes of TADC, as well as the narrative utility of Gummigoo, are spot-on. Pomni's empathetic nature despite her tendency to given in to fight or flight has been communicated expertly, and we got to see it all in action.
@@beea4401 You honestly said what I was thinking throughout the video better than I ever could. While I agree with Greg on some of the characters being less notable or characterized less clearly, something in the back of my head kept going towards "if this is the measurement of what bad writing is, why is it this successful"? The only answer Greg gives is gaming the TH-cam system. Essentially, TADC is a bad show that is dishonestly gaming the system to look better than it is. An answer he never gives is "maybe my subjective view of what good writing looks like is flawed".
The Pros of reading your comments: -i learned the word "Specious" -I haven't laughed this hard since the Minecraft movie announcement; my sides are obliterated The Cons of reading your comments: -I somehow know less about what "Juxtaposition" is than before i started reading. -being made aware that fans like you exist *FINAL SCORE:* 3/10; Commenter of the year
I dunno, I see what you're saying in terms of exposition and "telling vs showing" but, and I don't know how much of it is it a joke or not, I'm bad at getting jokes at times, it feels that you saw a different show than us, both for Circus and Monkey Wrench? Like it seems that you're missing the forest for the trees. Even with inside out calling sadness depression repeatedly, I don't know if that's like... a geniune misunderstanding/critique of the character or a running joke?
@@beea4401 ok then I think missed the entire point of Inside Out which is the necessity of sadness as emotional regulation. Calling her Depression is just weird.
The Amazing Digital Circus is sorta like My Little Pony, in that the main characters are each defined by a single personality quirk. The difference is that MLP has side characters, and a story, and the Mane 6 actually deviate from their gimmicks like real people do from time to time.
And that's the key of writing good characters. My best pony is Rarity, but believe it or not, I actually hated her when I first started out. But Suited for Success was the one that turned it all around for me, to see Rarity in a very different light from her usual quirk. It's actually good to define a character by a single trait; it makes them stand out and memorable. But you have to couple that with other traits, with personal drives and visions, with principles, moral stands, things that complete and give depth to their character.
@@Secret_Moon This. There's a balancing act when writing characters: between stereotypes who mechanistically react to situations according to their programming; and polyblanks who might do what the plot requires, but don't have anything going on under the hood at all. The two problems seem like opposites, between over-constraining and under-constraining character traits, but they both really stem from the same core issue, which is misunderstanding the chaotic consistent inconsistency of how real people behave. I may have misspoke earlier as well about how the ADC people are defined by personality quirks. Personality is reactive. Fluttershy is claustrophobic in big social gatherings, shuts down when she's in the spotlight, and gets aggressive when pushed too far, but is fine when she's on her own and in control. I'm pretty sure Pomni would hyperventilate and have a panic attack whether she was painting a landscape or manning the till at Burger King. It's not how she responds to outside input, but how she's hardwired to behave in any situation.
What really bothers me is that it’s meant to be a character driven show and yet the characters’ actions rarely have consequences for the plot Pomni’s decision to go through the exit in episode 1 finds Caine quite effectively despite the fact she supposedly abandoned finding him to do that, which makes her conflict with Ragatha feel forced In episodes 2 and 3 the characters find practical solutions to their situations (clipping out of the under stage area which gives them the second tanker, getting through the horror game section by holding your breath) but these solutions are not the result of the emotional journeys they’re supposed to be on Pomni doesn’t figure out she has to clip the car through growth or something, same with the breath holding. The “emotional” exposition scenes just serve to get the characters to calm down before they actually solve the problem in a completely unrelated way Ironically the only character who’s actions directly change the plot are Caine (my personal favorite character, strong personality with clear motivations) and Jax (my least favorite character. He causes Pomni to get stuck in the bad situation in all episodes, yet once he does the plot driving action he essentially disappears from the narrative, literally in episode 3 after trapping Kinger and Pomni in the horror zone. He’s just an infuriating plot device whose actions aren’t yet reflective of any clear interesting character) I think it’d be way easier to define the characters’ personalities by giving them more agency in the plot and having the solutions come of a direct result of their characters rather than just finding simple practical solutions after depositing their feelings
I feel that's a valid critisism, that there is a little left on the table by not tying the emotional journey of the characters more tightly to the "mechanics" of the problem and the resolution, it could make it feel more tangible and resonating. That said its not like those individual parts are precisely badly executed. I could go meta and say that it is maybe an accurate reflexion of videogames the show is meant ape, where like the emotional resolution of the story, if any, were usually unrelated to the mechanical beats. But that's like actually just cope lol.
Considering the inspiration is "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream", the lack of character agency is most likely the point. The characters have things happen to them that they have to deal with.
You say that there's no way that a popular franchise could be dethroned with a little criticism, and in this day and age where anyone can get a fanbase of 10k with a few hundred fans in several countries you might be right. But let us never forget that Sword Art Online and Attack on Titan were once at the top of media awareness for being novel stories that went on to not realize the potential people thought they had.
I get what you're saying, and I really like the video, but I still think that despite its flaws TADC is pretty good. There's something about it, I'm not sure. Anyhow, I like your analysis of stuff, I feel these are important things to consider when it comes to storytelling.
I understand that the core writing of some of these online series aren't very strong. But then again I find that some stuff that ends up on Tv while having tight writing still isn't entertaining. I think sometimes the imperfections of these rough shows can be more enjoyable since the it reveals something about the person behind the product instead of being just over produced stuff where the soul is lost. I don't think it can excuse all mistakes and plot contrivances but I think that maybe there's something about the genuine nature of a production.
I'm actually currently learning the process of writing an mlp parody, which is heavily inspired on MAS, Scootertrix and dwk... "You should the behaviour in any given situation of a well-defined character" feels like something that I've been trying to avoid at all costs, and which I seriously needed a reminder of! However, what do you think of the ways to exposit your characters in the pilot episode, and more specifically: how fine is it to immediately put characters in a situation that is designed to let their personality be known in the most obvious and efficient way? Putting Anger in an outrageous situation from the get-go feels stupid because they would just be acting normal, and you would end up overdoing their part, but letting them be in a completely unrelated albeit more realistic situation where they also end up acting nothing out of the ordinary doesn't seem much more useful... So what do you think?
I don't think small children would be that attracted to lore bait... To be honest, I don't see it much myself: in the pilot episode, Pomni gets literally thrown along with the audience into this universe, with as little explanation as possibly plausible; and to me, that feels like code for: "don't think too hard about it, you are not meant to. This show is to be enjoyed for other kinds of things." ... Ok so yeah, I kinda proved against my own point, but that's OK because I have a second one: is this the kind of humor that would appeal to 9Y olds? I mean, in chronological order within merely 3 episodes, we have: psychological death by abstraction, existential dread, actual death by Cane, horror, and mind control. I mean... that feels more like a Bojack Horseman kind of inspiration, unless kids these days have gone into really weird shit!
Back when I was nine, I knew plenty of kids who watched Family Guy and played Call of Duty. Some kids just want to see edgy content because they want the alleged thrill of "feeling like an adult." Blood, guts and nihilism are the coolest thing ever to them, ESPECIALLY if it's happening to bright colorful characters they'd otherwise be ashamed to watch.
Also... wtf is the "lore bait" of this show? I feel like Greg is just trying to find any method of squaring that TADC is successful without thinking, because since it doesn't fall under his very specific purview of "good writing", then it must be because of some other underlying, more ephemeral reason that it's popular. You know, other than Greg's view on good writing being flawed, cause lord knows it can't be that.
@@LeafRazorStorm The plot is the exact opposite of vague and mysterious. There is no way out of the digital circus. The fact that Caine tried to make the players happy with an exit that he couldn't finish is pretty evident. What "theory" is left? If this is what is considered a "lore-bait" or "theory-bait" show, then either TADC does a poor job of it, or the term has no real meaning.
Don't think i don't see you playing around with the titling and thumbnails of these digital vids, you crafty creator. Im surprised this video is already almost at 3 k views despite the character-less thumbnail
I think the characters just suffer from being extremely one-dimensional. They all have a single defining personality quirk and it governs everything about them. I don't really agree with the "take X character and put them in Y situation", because I can imagine these characters being in different situations -- it's just that they don't really behave with any real nuance. Don't get me wrong I love Gooseworx and she is extremely funny and talented and I have followed her work for years. And I actually do like TADC overall. I just think the characters' personalities are by far the weakest part of the show. Contrasting this with FiM, each of the mane six do have a very cartoony personality quirk, but they don't stick rigidly to it. They have a depth that makes it fun to get to know them, because they can surprise you! Twilight is a nerdy goody-two-shoes, but she can be sassy, she can be emotional, she can be excited, she can be overwhelmed, she can be kind... She's the main character but she's not an empty self insert nor a one dimensional plot device. I could go on about the others but if you're reading this you know and love the show already. FiM was so successful _because_ it has such incredible character writing, so much that it touched the hearts of people way outside the target audience.
I feel like you're the sort of person who gets single-mindedly obsessed with particular topics for 2-3 month stints, then drops them and moves on. Like the whole Deltarune video a couple years back. Either that, or you just get so vengeful from conversations with dumb people that you knock these out within a couple days.
I think Pomni's character is someone who tries to be a good person™ but lets her flight or fight response and other involuntary reactions get the best of her. Its not a deep characterization, and I'm sure you could probably point to an exception or two
Isn't the climax of the first episode when she ISN'T threatened by anything and chooses to try to escape the circus and abandon Ragatha who'd been trying to cooperate with her?
@@Fronzel41 No? How would you think that's not a flight or fight situation??? A monster smashing into a hallway is a high stress, highly dangerous predicament and exactly the one I was trying to highlight as when she falters. The situations where her better nature shines through is low pressure situations like when she is out of bounds. I'm fine with pointing to evidence to the contrary, but pointing to that is kind of misunderstanding the point.
The flatness of the characters was disappointing. On a more surface level, I was annoyed by the number of gags about weird video game collision physics acting as deus ex machina. If it's meant to be a running joke, it should probably feel more natural.
You mean, the ONE time it was used at the end of episode 2? Also, do you know what a deus ex machina is? That collision physics trick was established in the beginning of the episode, and paid off near the end. It didn't come out of nowhere.
@@norsehorse84 My memory might be fuzzy, but I thought it was also used in the first episode to get out of a situation. I distinctly remember feeling weird about how many times this notoriously unpredictable simulation quirk just happened to work out, if not perfectly, at least non-catastrophically.
@@Luxatos There was no use of it in the pilot/episode 1 that the characters used or experienced themselves. I feel like you might just not like the premise and either picked a really odd surface level complaint that is just false, but you assumed to be true because you had no other example of a problem, or the very idea of the show doing that particular thing even ONCE is, for you, a problem, which is why I think the show might just not be for you.
@@norsehorse84 You seem really passionate about this. I did like the premise of the show, which is why I watched it in the first place. And doing something absurd isn't itself a problem. Relying on absurdity as a plot hook feels lazy though, and since it's only the second episode it felt like an impending trend. Compounded with the issues already mentioned in the podcast-video, you're right, it wasn't for me. Cool that people like it.
Jesus Christ. I keep trying to listen to this video, thinking that you’ll get to a point or make an actual argument but this is on par with Lily Orchard. Just because you lack the comprehension to describe any of the characters doesn’t mean that it’s a poorly written show.
On the topic of Pomni's personality when she's not having a panic attack...
I really wish the first episode had started with Pomni not realizing she was stuck in a game. She thinks it's just a really advanced VR game with revolutionary AI, so she goes along with everything she's presented with.
And none of the other characters wanna burst her bubble and tell her it's not actually a game.
So because of that, we have a while to get to know Pomni when she's just checking out something she thinks is a novelty. Maybe she makes fun of how cheesy everything looks, maybe she interacts with the characters, trying to test out the limits of the NPC AI, not knowing they're actually alive...
Maybe she's messing with them a bit to show she can be playful and curious.
Or maybe she makes fun of the kiddy aesthetic, finding it beneath her.
Once she's had time to react to things naturally and interact with the world a bit, THEN Pomni could try to take off the headset she thinks she's wearing, realize she can only take off her jester cap, and THEN she could have the expected mental breakdown.
Not only would this have given a better chance to get to know Pomni, it also would've given the horror themes time to slowly creep up and foreshadow themselves. It even presents a lot of opportunities for "if only she knew" jokes, which would be even stronger on a second watch.
But instead, the moment we see Pomni, she's immediately in panic mode, and the "you'll never escape" theme is immediately in full force.
But I dunno. Maybe they want panic and existentialism to be her default state.
Maybe it's supposed to make it more special when she learns to cope with the horror and her natural personality has a chance to come out finally.
That idea sounds actually amazing
Your comparison of indie animation scripts to "term papers" made something finally click in my mind, and now I'll never watch Vivziepop the same way again.
I love how you just instinctively pulled out the Rainbow Dash voice for "No, you're fake!" 🤣🤣
I’d actually like to hear you disassemble and reassemble Helluva Boss/Hazbin Hotel and it’s witting. It’s THE example of an indie show moving over into being part of the traditional animation industry (sending work over to overseas studios), and sparks discussion on the quality of the writing.
There’s definitely a lot more to work with behind three episodes, and I think it would be fun to listen to.
When the video is literally just a black screen you know it's gonna be a banger
You're helping give me confidence as I pursue my own writing.
I'm surprised at how much I learned from this, thank you. One small thing: Monkey Wrench is still alive as of this comment, its fourth episode is just going slow. That's all I know.
I’m a big fan of these longer form audio videos, they’re great for my day to day life. That being said though I think you’re missing a large component to TADC’s success, that isn’t children. It’s international audiences. From what I’ve seen TADC is far bigger in Japan than it is here, so much so that they’ve already opened up character cafes for the show. That probably goes for other countries as well, but the only place I’ve witnessed a traditional “fandom” for TADC is in Japan. Please excuse me if this paragraph is a bit hard to follow, Covid is taking my brain cels out back and shooting them this week.
Yeah some of the best content I've found. Is unscripted rants but only from people who are capable of making amazing well thought out content, and generally averse to the rants paradoxically
I’m glad that you try to be respectful to all of these indie projects when criticizing or just generally talking about them. When considering the characters, I think the difference is from the amount of screentime each one gets- Ragatha and Caine and Jax have a decent amount of screentime each episode, while Zooble and Kinger and Gangle have less screentime each episode, which is confirmed by Gooseworx consistently confirming on her tumblr what character each episode “focuses” on, meaning that you sort of have to wait for each character to be filled out beyond their surface level interpretations in their respective episode. Good video, your thoughts are interesting to hear!
I mean, if Greg still doesn't understand Kinger as a character because he sees exposition as purely anathema to characterization, then I don't think he's gonna understand any of the characters.
yeah I've been saying that to my friends that the show is basically "jr's first existential crisis" which is FINE we just gotta be honest about it and how it's not like, a Pillar of writing quality.
man I love listening to your world views
I see what you’re saying. Your right, we don’t really know how Pomni would act in random scenarios were she not panicking. I can’t say the same about kinger but there is a lot we don’t know about the characters despite having three episodes.
If I may come to the defence Monkey Wrench, since I'm a fan of that one in particular and you took the time to mention it;
I personally think we get enough personality from the three episodes we got so far. From the top of my head without rewatching all episodes again, I can say remember this much:
Shrike is the immature one, impulsive and childish. He's not good with money, given that he's in debt to a greedy space-cat AND wastes the money they were gonna use for artifical gravity, something practical, to instead use it on a paint job. One could also say his fascination with cartoons and junk food also reflects this immature personality. He's a trickster, not being afraid of lying to others or fighting fair (like when he fooled Scratch, aka said space-cat, in ep 1, or fought against Kara) He's also emotional, easily angered and not afraid to show it (again, him giving the finger to Scratch in ep 1: "Amigo THAT, pendejo!", or when he got pissed at their client), and often tries to joke away certain things or at least pretend like he doesn't take them seriously. At the same time, he's not entirely heartless, perfectly willing to stand up for little guys in ep 2. We do also get that he has some history with the L.A.W.-guys and do not think fondly of them, which might be justified seeing as how autoritarian they've been hinted as. In short, what you might call a "Jerk with a heart of gold". We also see that, despite all this, he's still a capable combatant, so he doesn't fall in the "funny loser character who talks big but actually sucks at what he does"-character.
Beebs, on the other hand, strikes me as the more mature and put-together of the two, the grown-up big brother type to balance out Shrike. Willing to take stuff more seriously but still not a total stick-in-the-mud, as seen when he promises that they can get Scratch's favourite pizza or joking along with him in ep 2. Still, he's no push-over, not afraid to put his foot down if needed. He's also seems a bit more sensitive and social, given that he knows how to play the guitar and tries his best to actually communicate with/help the "ghost" in ep. 3. (also, while he is big, I cannot for the life of me remember any "fat"-jokes in any of the episodes so far...? Or even references to him being fat...?)
Like I said, that's what I can remember just from memory. And from the previews of the next episode, it would seem that we're delving even further into Beebs personality and past (yes, there's gonna be a 4th episode).
While I can't say I disagree much with your critique of TADC, ain't nobody gonna come here and talk smack about Monkey Wrench on my watch without me having a say in it!!! (j/k)
in the context of this video's observations of Monkey Wrench, I'm not sure that you effectively defended MWs character writing.
As someone whose actively trying to write her own comic I’ve scrapped many draft’s already for reasons such as characters doing things for no proper reason. The plot going too fast things being exposition heavy. While I understand that characters are the most important part to writing it’s currently the hardest thing i find to get write like now I could probably figure out How My main character would react to any given situation she is but inherently trying to show that still a struggle. Overall i’d like to say it was nice watching this video and hearing your thoughts
I rewatched that scene from episode 2 to make sure I wasn't remembering things wrong, and Gummigoo was already in the middle of an existential crisis by the time it cut away. He was hyperventilating and Pomni was trying to calm him down, as I'd expect from what I understand of her character. Gummigoo knew something was wrong because he couldn't remember his mother's face, and that the person he was stuck with was clearly special for not having an asset in that room and knew more about what was going on than him because she said he's an NPC. So it would make sense for him to ask her what was going on. Something we already knew so we didn't need to see. All we skipped over was the exposition you keep saying the show only knows how to write.
When we cut back to him we see how he's reacted, basically shutting down while he processes what he learned. It makes sense that he'd just accept it instead of lashing out because of all the evidence but not really know how to deal with that reality. Pomni works to pull him out of that by forging an emotional connection. Frankly the conversation they have feels pretty natural to me. The cutting off of that relationship being further developed is the tragedy and the comedy of the ending. It also characterizes Caine as not being suited for the task he's been given by casually causing that trauma. There's also a shot for a second of Jax showing just through his expression softening that he probably either wanted to join Caufmo's funeral or perhaps comfort Pomni, or both, but it passes in a blink. If he did go it'd probably break through his armor too much and everyone would know why he's putting on the act of being so abrasive.
Yeah I agree w a lot in the video but the argument that cutting away from some emotional peaks is bad writing, is always so flimsy. 9/10 times, that scene resumes where it left off emotionally. Cutting to a b plot or whatever is just a way to pace out the emotion and overall tone of the episode. Imo whether you think this is good or not is more about personal taste.
Point: completely missed
Overall respect for Circus fans : 📉
Really like these longer audio vids to listen to
i'd be more interested in your thoughts of murder drones; the other big show from that channel.
Honestly, whether you agree or not there is considerable and even important stuff to learn from this video if you wanna make your own series, movie, game, or anything regarding making your own property for others to watch if you want the audience to feel good thinking about and getting inspired for sure
I appreciate the calm nature of your explanation
Dude you're so right!!
Your videos have taught me more about writing than any class I've ever taken, though I'm not studying literature or english formally.
Bro how do u watch dawn somewhere too. I see you in like all the comments sections of all the channels I watch, but Greg is like completely unrelated to the rest of them.
@@bradthunderpants3283 I came for the ponies and stayed for the tightly-written comedy. Been watching since 2016 iirc, what type of videos do you see me commenting on? I'm a bit chronically online youtube so specifics would help lol
@@LoneFifteen Charles Carroll. Like west, dbdr I think. Do you watch any of those? And yeah I also love Greg. He's one of the best writers of our era, while I find this series in particular to be a flop.
I can tell you "everyone's a writer" is very very incorrect. How people, especially yourself, write such vivid and clear characters through their dialogue and actions is absolute black magic to me.
With a lot of these indie projects. It almost always has the same flavor. Like it's written to be like corporate projects, only edgier. I often feel like an opertunity to make something wholly unique, is lost, when they attempt to follow the rulebook for showmaking. At the same time, the influence of the creators becomes quite obvious, in the little ways they deviate from the norm. I wish I knew how to explain it well. It sort of feels like somebody tried to dig a water hole, that's not as deep as a lake, but deeper than a river. And not as long as a river, but longer than a lake.
to be fair 99% of fanart for Amazing Digital Circus is Rule 34 of Pomni
Why do you know this? How?
@@Gothstana That's the main thing ANYBODY on the Internet knows about this show.
@@Ajente02Eh, if Overwatch can be successful because of it anyone can.
@@Ajente02 So true, that's how I learned about the show in fact
Good video! It's interesting to hear you disassemble the show's character writing like that. I feel like it's generally important to dissect cases in media that induce the thought "Well, it's not awful, but is that really the best way to use the limited screentime?"
Drawn Somewhere black screen video. WE EATING GOOD TONIGHT!!
So, I checked Inside Out 2, and the way Anger tells Joy to pony up is by speaking softly while gently offering his hand. So how does Anger react to learning he is not real? Imagine him dead silent, or indifferent, or joyful even, or shedding his first tears ever, or in pure rage, or denial, or completely lost... Everything works.
Or let's turn the question around. Imagine if in Inside Out 2, Anger had acted like Anger: telling Joy to get back up the only way an angry person knows how, by playing the drill sergeant and shaking her like a tree. Just imagine how well that would have gone.
In other words, when you ask who would win between the Star Wars empire and Kerrigan's brood from Starcraft, that's a fun exercise but one where you are forced to abstract the setting. Because in the Star Wars setting Kerrigan and her brood don't have the force, can't have the force and are therefore doomed to fail, per the script; and in the Koprulu sector the Empire's whole fleet, death star included, is fated to follow the path of the Earth expeditionary corp, because that's how it works.
It's not the character in a vacuum, it's the character in a context, and if the context has no impact on the character -- and I'm not just talking about "the range of emotions" -- then you get a disjointed mess. If you put Anger in TADC, he better act like a TADC character.
I think Anger being able to talk calmly about refusing to quit is a good example of the character having "range", and not a good example of fiction or characters having no rules. If you put Anger in TADC he acts like Anger. He can express a range of feelings, but if he acts out of character then he's out of character.
And besides, in fanfics about the Zerg fighting Darth Vader, the fic writer usually goes out of their way to establish how Zerg psionics interact with the Force, or if it does at all.
@@Dawnsomewhere Actually they just assimilate the Star Wars whales.
Point remains. Anger acting angry in that scene would wreck everything. So he can't act angry. Hence his "range", because the script requires it. And you come up with excuses like "oh Joy is his best friend" and whatever. Then you can make the same excuses for him when he discovers he is not real.
It's not reaction(character), it's reaction(character, context). There are rules, there are in fact more rules than just the character's.
I just mean you can't have Anger be "angry" 100% of the time, or else it would really limit what you can do with the character. That's why Joy also has moments of self-doubt, or even of sadness. Being angry is Anger's center, but he's allowed to drift off that axis as the scene requires it. It's like an electron blob, or something. A character is generally going to be within a specific valence range of behavior, and if you find them in an orbital they wouldn't normally be in, then something weird or special is going on.
Otherwise there'd be no meaningful difference between Yogi Bear and Shinji.
@@Dawnsomewhere Weird or special like not existing. But we're basically saying the same thing at this point.
Now obviously Yogi Bear can't get depressed overnight and Shinji can't recover and hunt picnic baskets on a whim. But Yogi would die if he tried his salesman attitude in an Eva cockpit, and good luck staying apathetic in that park, with that ranger and the lil' supportive brother.
Yogi would be salesman+breakdown and Shinji would be a wreck+comfy. What comes out of this equation is how Anger should react.
I would just advise you to not think of it in terms of "character variance" but rather in terms of "character in context". Never neglect the setting.
Always appreciate getting more writing advice from you, especially character writing advice
These are nice. And thank you for putting into to real words why the show kept feeling /fine/ yet kinda off. I always feel like my brain picks up on these structural things yet just has no idea how to formulate it coherently so the whole experience with ends up being a ??? feeling about the piece of media.
I appreciate your perspective! :)
Imo, for a show, the success mostly depends on its lore and worldbuilding, and the potentials for fans to explore and build upon. We saw this with FIM, with Murder Drones, with Hazbin Hotel, and with The Digital Circus itself at the pilot. Characters, if done well, is a good bonus. But what really draws fans in a show is that it gives them something to discuss, to speculate, to imagine, to make theory and write fanfics and draw comics, etc.
This has strong ¨apology video¨ vibes
Black screen intentional?
Also, Katniss has way more personality in the books, the movie suffers because you can't hear the internal monologue.
Yep! I'd upload them as pure audio if it were possible. They're like podcasts.
@@Dawnsomewhere Fair enough, it is nice to have in the background.
Greg has read the book, I think. He talked about her overly analytical, synthesizing thought processes in another video.
I've always wanted a perspective from a brony
They don't horse around. They're used to dealing with neighsayers.
Welcome to the herd. When it comes to cartoon analysis, the buck stops here.
Enjoyed the video/podcast and I will say that I think your writing is definitely one of your stronger skills especially when characters are talking to each other. There’s a reason I rewatch the mech warrior let’s play at least once a year.
I say this because I think there is still value to take from digital circus. If it’s that projects that start on TH-cam need expressive animation and be kid friendly then that’s still good to know. Perhaps it’s that every show needs some mystery element to entice other TH-camrs to make their own videos talking about it.
I think about digital circus the way I think about cartoons that I watched as a kid. Not all those cartoons were as good as the stuff that came later, but it was necessary for the earlier stuff to exist because what came after built on the good will generated from the previous projects. And it’s not a quality thing that gets built on, it’s convincing people with money to fund increasingly riskier projects.
Anyway, good video. I enjoy the writing talk.
Did you make this whole video because I commented "I don't get the joke" on the modest digital circus?
Well for 1 I just wanna say you're out of your mind, you are an amazing comic writer. Stebe boy hotdog is one of my favorite things ever. And I'll elaborate on my criticism I guess. I didn't get that "let's flesh out these characters into characters" was what you were going for at all, so the whole thing seemed to have that vibe to me of those 2012 TH-cam animations just ripping off a popular IP for views. But you know doesn't actually exist for a reason. the "dude what if instead of pokemon it's Toke-mon and they're smoking weed" and than the animation is just Pikachu with red eyes throwing up and stuff for 3 minutes. And I went into it expecting like a parody that says something about the amazing digital circus, kind of like MAS was.
Oh and also I would really like to touch on the exposition thing. Greg you don't do nearly enough exposition. The focus on only character dialogue often leaves the viewer, or the players in your roleplaying games having no idea why things happen. Like I remember you talking about the skellingrim campaign and "the players didn't know X and Y factso they made this stupid decision" but like. X and Y was only ever in your head the characters you played as the DM made decisions based on those facts but I wonder if the players at the end of that game ever even knew X and Y or if they just kind of vaguely knew stuff happened.
But anyways idk I think it's a fine show. Obviously pandering to kids but I like it about as much as I liked say season 1 of Rick and Morty. I'm surprised ep 2 and 3 didn't get bad from being in production hell like most web series.
It interesting, the point of them appealing to kids when I think gooseworx has made posts making it seem like they don’t like that it appeals to kids so much
I just wrote a book that's like a super dense literary fantasy kind of thing, with a lot of meta textual commentary on role-playing games and things like that,
I had to make peace very early on with the idea that the only way I would be able to publish this book at all would be going through amazon
There are no Independents anymore
You could say this is a nitpick, so I'm going to start with: I largely agree with you on this video. There are a couple minor points I don't agree with, but that's going to happen, yadda yadda, moving on.
The only thing I really wanted to correct you on is that the character from Inside Out that you referred to as Depression is actually Sadness. You might think this is a nitpick, and by all definitions it is because it ultimately doesn't change the point of your video, but it does bother me because part of the entire crux of the movie is that Sadness isn't the same as depression. Sadness is an emotion that aids in the processing of negative memories and experiences so that the other emotions can do their jobs. Depression is a lack of emotion (or a lack of variety in mood, sometimes referred to as being unipolar), either purposefully or accidentally, that can either cause or be caused by a lack of healthy processing of negative memories and experiences. In movie terms, Sadness is the character that gets sucked out of HQ with Joy, whereas depression is the event where the main console turns grey and becomes unresponsive.
TL;DR I get that calling Sadness "Depression" was an accident, but it is important to the movie and characterization to recognize that the two are very different things.
oooohhhhh shit new greg
As someone who works in a public school you would not believe the amount of unlicensed TADC merch I see being carried around by grade school kids. There's some pockets of older fans but I think gen A are carrying this show for the most part.
That sounds pretty solid, a bunch of times I was thinking your wrong but I see your point.
I think a lot of it comes down to what they can do, and who they are as a studio, budget is a big one so you have to make sacrifices for the sake of money and time.
I think a point you are missing is that this will be a self contained story and not a series beyond the set episode list, like it’s a tv movie, it’s all one big movie split up over small sections that are put out on a schedule.
Also I think you might be judging characters that have had more screen time than on TADS, which I think ties back into the need to consider it one big movie and not individual episodes with each plot.
But I completely agree that they could have done way more for character building but I’m waiting to see how it all comes together non the end.
I would actually compare this to the cartoon series, over the garden wall, each epesode was like a mini adventure but tiring it all in together mage an amazing story but it did have better writing for characters each mini adventure.
Opinions on the main point aside, besides maybe a select few that turns up with each episode premiere from semi-popular artists on twit (not counting fnf mods), I also dont see a lot of fanart from the target audience now that you mention it. Its either insignifigant general fanart (usually feom the younger crowd) or nsfw art, when other fandoms make things within all spectrums
As long as you are analyzing Digital Circus, have you had the opportunity to look over Glitch's previous show Murder Drones? It's pretty unique when it comes to animated shows, indie or otherwise.
My first watch-through I binged the whole thing and ended up having mixed feelings on it, but upon rewatches it forced me to sort of reconsider some of my preconceptions about like... writing in general? Like how one can take advantage of the platform and release schedule of show available to everyone on the internet, and the benefits and drawbacks of writing specifically for lore enthusiasts who are able to rewind and pause on every frame (since it's available for everyone on the internet) for the months between episodes vs a casual audience that will almost certainly get left behind, haha.
Might be cool to hear your thoughts on it sometime if you ever get around to seeing it. Cheers dude. Always enjoy hearing your well constructed thoughts on stuff.
First episode was promising.
Second episode was alright, still overall pretty good.
Third episode made me think "I don't think I'm going to keep watching."
U got crap taste my guy, tha third episode is tha best & tha most fully realized/well-developed & structured so far. Tha first ep was a decent but flawed debut & tha worst episode thus far is prolly tha second, as it tries to do too much in tha A plot & doesn't do enough in tha B story
RD presents was wonderful indeed. So, you two wrote Sinking Ships together then?
I might check out the digital circus at some point just to see what it's about.
hey greg, what books have you read to learn more about writing?
I think the thing with Zooble is that they're either
a: establishing her as a body/gender dismorphia character
Or b: setting up her issues as forshadowing for her eventual abstraction
The ironic thing is that Goosewrx has said that if they ever do another show that they want to make it less accidentally appealing to kids.
There's another show called "Set sail for Candy" released at about the same time as TADC and had just as good animation, but even now it sits at about 70K views
The whole "nothing is independent" makes sense
If you're looking for memes/art: that exploded after the pilot, so if you haven't seen "anything," then I would say you're out of the loop. I will say, it hasn't been nearly as crazy since the pilot, though.
Agreed.
Some food for thought...
Well... I-I mean... Hmm... O-Okay, that's... Alright, you make a lotta good points.
I agree! I haven't gone into detail with my friends who get a lot of emotional value from the show, but I find a lot of the dialogue really cheesy when it's being said between paragraphs of exposition on both sides. It causes the emotional revelations and pep talks to feel a little jarring and phoned in because they weren't earned- they just went through the motions of earning them and called it a day.
I like what they've set up and I enjoy watching it, but when someone asks me to review an episode I find myself wanting to deconstruct everything that I found lacking instead of going through everything I enjoyed. Which,, means the things i enjoyed didn't have much staying power I suppose.
Greg, I like you and all, but this is one of the most cartoonpilled takes in history. The throughline of all of the TADC characters is how they deal with loss of control. Ragatha is the team mother because she gains satisfaction by helping Pomni cope with her situation as a form of mutualism (and probably projection). Jax is the asshole because he's dealing with the loss of control over his life by asserting his will over the others as a bully. Kinger is just straight up traumatized by the death of a thousand cuts of living life in the circus, (probably) being responsible for the creation of the circus, and survivor's guilt, and he expresses that trauma as having contracted some form of dementia and literally hiding in a pillow fort to gain control over his environment by changing it to be more comfortable. Gangle is overcome by her own depression which is literally manifested as the mishaps that happen to her comedy mask, and may also be an allegory to self sabotage inherent in mood disorders like bipolar. Zooble is probably the worst of this because their story is just straight up shoehorned in, but they represent never having had control of their own life and therefore becoming the naive realist pseudo-Daria of the group. Pomni is also a fairly realistic "self-insert" character, as her natural instinct in ep1 is to escape at all costs, and then she transitions to learning about the other characters and how they cope with their loss of control, and empathizing with the traumatized survivors while still being the awkward outsider "new friend" to an established friend group.
Furthermore, none of this has anything to do with why TADC became popular or will remain popular. TADC became popular because its design appeals to the lowest common denominator, and it's easily digestible while not immediately alienating more advanced viewers. TADC could easily survive with writing that was maybe 20% worse and would still end up being Glitch's most successful run. The thing everyone should take away from TADC is that as long as you build initial momentum quickly and continue with consistent output (Homestuck, most multi-season TV shows like Supernatural, etc) it doesn't really matter if your show declines in quality, the momentum will carry it so long as you don't subvert the expectations of the viewership too much at once, and viewer churn doesn't really matter so long as it does not overcome momentum. Consistency is king, and Greg has erroneously presented that as it were writing advice rather than advice for creating a product to be consumed.
I don't see how this affects many of his complaints; that the characters are shallow, for instance.
@Fronzel41 To be honest, I expect to eat shit on this, but I think the entire premise of the season is to present them as archetypal characters (through the lens of their mental disorders) and then expose them as having underlying depth by challenging them to run contrary to their nature. My criticism of Greg's criticism is that he completely failed to identify the basic mechanics of the characters because he's looking at it as a cartoon where every character serves a mechanical purpose and the writing needs to be tight, where what it actually is is candy coated psychological horror, juxtaposing a ridiculous cartoon logic premise with its very real traumatic effects. It's basically I Have No Mouth done in reverse. In I Have No Mouth, the character's pasts are revealed through juxtaposition with the torture AM has crafted individually for them, whereas in TADC character depth is revealed through how they end up being accidentally triggered by the innocuous cartoon scenario (which makes me suspect I'm going to eat shit, because I think Jax is next, and his juxtaposition is that he can't do self serving cartoon hijinx as a fast food wagie, and I don't see a path to revealing Jax's 'hidden character depth' without destroying the character). The B plot of the digital circus is always "here's this wacky adventure guys," and the A plot is then "here's this scenario where Pomni is forced to learn about another member by going through their accidentally perfect traumatic trigger with them."
Episode 1 and Episode 2 perfectly characterized Pomni as a normal person who is extremely overwhelmed but ultimately a mild and empathetic person, where Episode 1 sets her up in an unkind light to establish the premise, Episode 2 deconstructs the setup of Episode 1 by establishing her baseline character without the fight or flight response that caused her to hurt Ragatha, and showcased the uncaring cruelty of the Circus as a character. Gummigoo was literally the cruelty of the Circus as a narrative device, and the reason underlying why Gummigoo's character development from an NPC to a sapient individual undergoing existential crisis was completely internal was because Gummigoo as a character only mattered to how he effected Pomni. Episode 3 is then the "business as usual" episode where the premise of the show has already been fully presented.
Greg's advice for making something to be as successful as TADC is just specious nonsense. Partly, it's because he doesn't understand the underlying premise of the show (and probably because he is too cartoonbrained to imagine good character writing without immediately turning to the crutches of high throughput corporatized writing). But mostly, it's because he himself is not a very good writer and that he falls into the trappings of the writing advice given to amateurs of "show don't tell, keep your writing tight, every character should be easy to understand" and when he's presented with something that falls out of his preferred orthodoxy, he completely loses his bananas and fails to grasp the basic mechanics of the work and ends up getting frustrated to the point of producing the most base, low effort takes possible.
His points about the monkey show I did not watch are also probably total nonsense, unless it's bad, and if it's bad, then pretend it's not for the sake of argument because I'm not going to watch it. What I was trying to underscore is that making a successful product and writing well are two separate goals that really have no overlap at all. There is a triangle trade between audience capture, technical merit, and continuous exposure, and success as an "indie" is almost exclusively biased somewhere between audience capture and continuous exposure. Your show is never going to fail because you failed to satisfy some silly checklist from a beginner writing book, and the juxtaposition Greg presents between "don't copy TADC's writing style because it is bad" and "this funny monkey show failed because it ran out of money" is misleading and juvenile.
@@beea4401 I think your analysis of the structuring of the episodes of TADC, as well as the narrative utility of Gummigoo, are spot-on. Pomni's empathetic nature despite her tendency to given in to fight or flight has been communicated expertly, and we got to see it all in action.
@@beea4401 You honestly said what I was thinking throughout the video better than I ever could. While I agree with Greg on some of the characters being less notable or characterized less clearly, something in the back of my head kept going towards "if this is the measurement of what bad writing is, why is it this successful"? The only answer Greg gives is gaming the TH-cam system. Essentially, TADC is a bad show that is dishonestly gaming the system to look better than it is. An answer he never gives is "maybe my subjective view of what good writing looks like is flawed".
The Pros of reading your comments:
-i learned the word "Specious"
-I haven't laughed this hard since the Minecraft movie announcement; my sides are obliterated
The Cons of reading your comments:
-I somehow know less about what "Juxtaposition" is than before i started reading.
-being made aware that fans like you exist
*FINAL SCORE:*
3/10; Commenter of the year
I dunno, I see what you're saying in terms of exposition and "telling vs showing" but, and I don't know how much of it is it a joke or not, I'm bad at getting jokes at times, it feels that you saw a different show than us, both for Circus and Monkey Wrench? Like it seems that you're missing the forest for the trees. Even with inside out calling sadness depression repeatedly, I don't know if that's like... a geniune misunderstanding/critique of the character or a running joke?
@fabiangamboa1714 it's not a joke, everything he said is meant to be taken at face value.
@@beea4401 ok then I think missed the entire point of Inside Out which is the necessity of sadness as emotional regulation. Calling her Depression is just weird.
@fabiangamboa1714 I never saw Inside Out, but that was my understanding of the premise as well. I think Greg's just having a bad take day.
Soul Reaver 1&2 are getting a remaster for their 25th anniversary. Any chance there will be a new Ramble with Rae?
The Amazing Digital Circus is sorta like My Little Pony, in that the main characters are each defined by a single personality quirk. The difference is that MLP has side characters, and a story, and the Mane 6 actually deviate from their gimmicks like real people do from time to time.
And that's the key of writing good characters. My best pony is Rarity, but believe it or not, I actually hated her when I first started out. But Suited for Success was the one that turned it all around for me, to see Rarity in a very different light from her usual quirk. It's actually good to define a character by a single trait; it makes them stand out and memorable. But you have to couple that with other traits, with personal drives and visions, with principles, moral stands, things that complete and give depth to their character.
@@Secret_Moon This. There's a balancing act when writing characters: between stereotypes who mechanistically react to situations according to their programming; and polyblanks who might do what the plot requires, but don't have anything going on under the hood at all.
The two problems seem like opposites, between over-constraining and under-constraining character traits, but they both really stem from the same core issue, which is misunderstanding the chaotic consistent inconsistency of how real people behave.
I may have misspoke earlier as well about how the ADC people are defined by personality quirks. Personality is reactive.
Fluttershy is claustrophobic in big social gatherings, shuts down when she's in the spotlight, and gets aggressive when pushed too far, but is fine when she's on her own and in control.
I'm pretty sure Pomni would hyperventilate and have a panic attack whether she was painting a landscape or manning the till at Burger King. It's not how she responds to outside input, but how she's hardwired to behave in any situation.
What really bothers me is that it’s meant to be a character driven show and yet the characters’ actions rarely have consequences for the plot
Pomni’s decision to go through the exit in episode 1 finds Caine quite effectively despite the fact she supposedly abandoned finding him to do that, which makes her conflict with Ragatha feel forced
In episodes 2 and 3 the characters find practical solutions to their situations (clipping out of the under stage area which gives them the second tanker, getting through the horror game section by holding your breath) but these solutions are not the result of the emotional journeys they’re supposed to be on
Pomni doesn’t figure out she has to clip the car through growth or something, same with the breath holding. The “emotional” exposition scenes just serve to get the characters to calm down before they actually solve the problem in a completely unrelated way
Ironically the only character who’s actions directly change the plot are Caine (my personal favorite character, strong personality with clear motivations) and Jax (my least favorite character. He causes Pomni to get stuck in the bad situation in all episodes, yet once he does the plot driving action he essentially disappears from the narrative, literally in episode 3 after trapping Kinger and Pomni in the horror zone. He’s just an infuriating plot device whose actions aren’t yet reflective of any clear interesting character)
I think it’d be way easier to define the characters’ personalities by giving them more agency in the plot and having the solutions come of a direct result of their characters rather than just finding simple practical solutions after depositing their feelings
I feel that's a valid critisism, that there is a little left on the table by not tying the emotional journey of the characters more tightly to the "mechanics" of the problem and the resolution, it could make it feel more tangible and resonating. That said its not like those individual parts are precisely badly executed. I could go meta and say that it is maybe an accurate reflexion of videogames the show is meant ape, where like the emotional resolution of the story, if any, were usually unrelated to the mechanical beats. But that's like actually just cope lol.
Considering the inspiration is "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream", the lack of character agency is most likely the point. The characters have things happen to them that they have to deal with.
Which version of I have no mouth is TADC taking inspiration from? The book, the comic, or the game?
You say that there's no way that a popular franchise could be dethroned with a little criticism, and in this day and age where anyone can get a fanbase of 10k with a few hundred fans in several countries you might be right. But let us never forget that Sword Art Online and Attack on Titan were once at the top of media awareness for being novel stories that went on to not realize the potential people thought they had.
I get what you're saying, and I really like the video, but I still think that despite its flaws TADC is pretty good. There's something about it, I'm not sure. Anyhow, I like your analysis of stuff, I feel these are important things to consider when it comes to storytelling.
Suddenly I'm feeling very self conscious. Am I a good character? I'd hate to be poorly written...
I understand that the core writing of some of these online series aren't very strong. But then again I find that some stuff that ends up on Tv while having tight writing still isn't entertaining. I think sometimes the imperfections of these rough shows can be more enjoyable since the it reveals something about the person behind the product instead of being just over produced stuff where the soul is lost. I don't think it can excuse all mistakes and plot contrivances but I think that maybe there's something about the genuine nature of a production.
I'm actually currently learning the process of writing an mlp parody, which is heavily inspired on MAS, Scootertrix and dwk... "You should the behaviour in any given situation of a well-defined character" feels like something that I've been trying to avoid at all costs, and which I seriously needed a reminder of!
However, what do you think of the ways to exposit your characters in the pilot episode, and more specifically: how fine is it to immediately put characters in a situation that is designed to let their personality be known in the most obvious and efficient way?
Putting Anger in an outrageous situation from the get-go feels stupid because they would just be acting normal, and you would end up overdoing their part, but letting them be in a completely unrelated albeit more realistic situation where they also end up acting nothing out of the ordinary doesn't seem much more useful...
So what do you think?
"Now there's a name I haven't heard in quite a long time..."
I don't think small children would be that attracted to lore bait... To be honest, I don't see it much myself: in the pilot episode, Pomni gets literally thrown along with the audience into this universe, with as little explanation as possibly plausible; and to me, that feels like code for: "don't think too hard about it, you are not meant to. This show is to be enjoyed for other kinds of things."
...
Ok so yeah, I kinda proved against my own point, but that's OK because I have a second one: is this the kind of humor that would appeal to 9Y olds? I mean, in chronological order within merely 3 episodes, we have: psychological death by abstraction, existential dread, actual death by Cane, horror, and mind control. I mean... that feels more like a Bojack Horseman kind of inspiration, unless kids these days have gone into really weird shit!
Back when I was nine, I knew plenty of kids who watched Family Guy and played Call of Duty. Some kids just want to see edgy content because they want the alleged thrill of "feeling like an adult." Blood, guts and nihilism are the coolest thing ever to them, ESPECIALLY if it's happening to bright colorful characters they'd otherwise be ashamed to watch.
@@LeafRazorStorm creepy.
Also... wtf is the "lore bait" of this show? I feel like Greg is just trying to find any method of squaring that TADC is successful without thinking, because since it doesn't fall under his very specific purview of "good writing", then it must be because of some other underlying, more ephemeral reason that it's popular.
You know, other than Greg's view on good writing being flawed, cause lord knows it can't be that.
@@norsehorse84 I imagine “lore bait” means “The plot is just vague and mysterious enough for MatPat to write conspiracies about it.”
@@LeafRazorStorm The plot is the exact opposite of vague and mysterious. There is no way out of the digital circus. The fact that Caine tried to make the players happy with an exit that he couldn't finish is pretty evident.
What "theory" is left? If this is what is considered a "lore-bait" or "theory-bait" show, then either TADC does a poor job of it, or the term has no real meaning.
Don't think i don't see you playing around with the titling and thumbnails of these digital vids, you crafty creator. Im surprised this video is already almost at 3 k views despite the character-less thumbnail
Great video loved listening to you dissect the show but quick fyi zooble is non-binary not a girl
I think the characters just suffer from being extremely one-dimensional. They all have a single defining personality quirk and it governs everything about them. I don't really agree with the "take X character and put them in Y situation", because I can imagine these characters being in different situations -- it's just that they don't really behave with any real nuance. Don't get me wrong I love Gooseworx and she is extremely funny and talented and I have followed her work for years. And I actually do like TADC overall. I just think the characters' personalities are by far the weakest part of the show.
Contrasting this with FiM, each of the mane six do have a very cartoony personality quirk, but they don't stick rigidly to it. They have a depth that makes it fun to get to know them, because they can surprise you! Twilight is a nerdy goody-two-shoes, but she can be sassy, she can be emotional, she can be excited, she can be overwhelmed, she can be kind... She's the main character but she's not an empty self insert nor a one dimensional plot device. I could go on about the others but if you're reading this you know and love the show already. FiM was so successful _because_ it has such incredible character writing, so much that it touched the hearts of people way outside the target audience.
this video is also only audio
baysud gregpost
dang, sucks to hear about monkey wrench.
I feel like you're the sort of person who gets single-mindedly obsessed with particular topics for 2-3 month stints, then drops them and moves on. Like the whole Deltarune video a couple years back. Either that, or you just get so vengeful from conversations with dumb people that you knock these out within a couple days.
I think Pomni's character is someone who tries to be a good person™ but lets her flight or fight response and other involuntary reactions get the best of her. Its not a deep characterization, and I'm sure you could probably point to an exception or two
Isn't the climax of the first episode when she ISN'T threatened by anything and chooses to try to escape the circus and abandon Ragatha who'd been trying to cooperate with her?
@@Fronzel41 No? How would you think that's not a flight or fight situation??? A monster smashing into a hallway is a high stress, highly dangerous predicament and exactly the one I was trying to highlight as when she falters. The situations where her better nature shines through is low pressure situations like when she is out of bounds.
I'm fine with pointing to evidence to the contrary, but pointing to that is kind of misunderstanding the point.
@@TeleportRush Not the monster, the exit door in a later scene. She's alone and not threatened by anything when that happens.
🔥
The flatness of the characters was disappointing. On a more surface level, I was annoyed by the number of gags about weird video game collision physics acting as deus ex machina. If it's meant to be a running joke, it should probably feel more natural.
You mean, the ONE time it was used at the end of episode 2? Also, do you know what a deus ex machina is? That collision physics trick was established in the beginning of the episode, and paid off near the end. It didn't come out of nowhere.
@@norsehorse84 My memory might be fuzzy, but I thought it was also used in the first episode to get out of a situation. I distinctly remember feeling weird about how many times this notoriously unpredictable simulation quirk just happened to work out, if not perfectly, at least non-catastrophically.
@@Luxatos There was no use of it in the pilot/episode 1 that the characters used or experienced themselves. I feel like you might just not like the premise and either picked a really odd surface level complaint that is just false, but you assumed to be true because you had no other example of a problem, or the very idea of the show doing that particular thing even ONCE is, for you, a problem, which is why I think the show might just not be for you.
@@norsehorse84 You seem really passionate about this. I did like the premise of the show, which is why I watched it in the first place. And doing something absurd isn't itself a problem. Relying on absurdity as a plot hook feels lazy though, and since it's only the second episode it felt like an impending trend. Compounded with the issues already mentioned in the podcast-video, you're right, it wasn't for me. Cool that people like it.
Comment
Jesus Christ. I keep trying to listen to this video, thinking that you’ll get to a point or make an actual argument but this is on par with Lily Orchard.
Just because you lack the comprehension to describe any of the characters doesn’t mean that it’s a poorly written show.
uwu
Truth is animation has never been good.