No.1005113
For years I've been wishing they did something new with Little Audrey, but I knew it was best not to wish for that. The chances of them not ruining the character were slim.
But it was unavoidable, I guess. I don't think the show will be horrible, just bad-mediocre; but I've been watching clips on YT and I just can't see Audrey in it!
The kid is called Audrey but… it's just not her! The voice is terrible, the energy is all wrong, and they had designs that were way fucking better!
I don't know much about Dot but I'm sure she loves dots and that's her entire personality. OK, I understand they have to change that, they have to give her a real character instead of just one trait, but they gave her the worst fucking personality. An annoying girl genius with a passion for fashion? Lame, overdone, old and lazy.
Lotta seems to be fun and sweet, Dot is definetely gonna be the opposite of that. Dot's gonna be bossy and mean, Audrey is not Audrey, and Lotta may be sweet but I don't think she'll save the show.
Also I think I saw a very similar episode in Loud House, only with a cold instead of lack of sleep.
No.1005119
See what I mean when I say they could have worked with better designs? There I can see Audrey!
Lotta also had a better design at some point, and Dot didn't. With Dot they chose right.
Lucretia I like a lot, she's the only one that carries a lot of the old Harvey Comics charm.
No.1005137
I could've done without knowing about this anon, but thanks for posting this. This is horrible and Audrey sounds like a middle aged aunt desperately attempting to channel being hip and cool, or some shit, or what these horrid modern hacks think a tomboy should sound like.
Adding insult to injury, the fucking art is more sterile than the actual Harvey-toons could ever hope to be.
It's a goddamned bastardization of the Harveytoons look, with the fucking uniform line-widths of modern cheap pieces of mass produced garbage, and a weird mesh of the classic Harveytoons look and modern cartoon sensibilities.
Ah whatever, who cares. This is girlyshit anyways, and kids'll probably eat this garbage up if they happen to stumble upon it.
This shit won't bear any fruit since it's a Netflix original cartoon series, and kids have a wide selection of shit to watch before they land on this heartless shit.
At least the backgrounds are emulating 50s art and don't do the typical uniform line bullshit.
No.1005138
Reminder that this is the level of animation that Little Audrey enjoyed back in the day.
Even the best digital cartoon today can't compare.
No.1005139
>>1005119
Jesus fucking christ, it's painful that beanbrows in pic 1 tells more about the mischievous nature character of Audrey than the actual show's design.
No.1005140
>>1005139
I agree 200% but to be fair, not every design can be translated into animation.
Of course with traditional animation your options are far less limited, so that design you called beanbrows could have been used. If only animation was made traditionally…
No.1005142
>>1005119
Are these by Katie Rice?
No.1005143
>>1005142
Yup, good eye.
I don't dislike the new designs, actually. Of course the original designs are supreme and superior in every way, but I don't dislike the new ones. I'd love it if she wasn't supossed to be Little Audrey, if the show had a totally different name, etc.
And even if the new designs were as glorious as the original, that wouldn't matter if the animation is gonna be poor anyway…
No.1005185
File: b3fc0ce5e14ecbb⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 548.8 KB, 2077x1296, 2077:1296, 2607346 - Audrey_Smith Dot….jpg)
No.1005230
>>1005138
nothing can compare nowadays. everything is done in flash.
>>1005143
all those obligatory diversity tokens.
No.1005247
>>1005230
>everything is done in flash.
ToonBoom more often, but makes little difference.
What bugs me is we have so many more options to save time and efficiency than the animators of the past, yet instead of getting better animation, we get worse.
No.1005248
>>1005247
yeah, i meant computer animated. flash is kind of on its way out huh?
>yet instead of getting better animation, we get worse.
yes because it became a huge market and drifted towards being a business rather than a legit form of entertainment. Jews are running the show now. thats why every show has diversity tokens, i certainly don't remember audrey having a niglet friend or an obese german stereotype who, let me guess, will be "dumb" too.
No.1005253
>>1005248
>flash is kind of on its way out huh?
Yeah, I think so. Flash still has its uses but it was never designed to be a professional animation tool for TV. ToonBoom and TVPaint were.
>Jews are running the show now
They always were, but they're going full jew now.
>audrey having a niglet friend
They blacked Dot. I hate that they do this to formerly white characters. It really pisses me off.
No.1005266
>>1005253
Honestly I'd take them adding new black characters if it meant leaving the white ones white.
No.1005365
Like the original animators didn't know what they were doing…
No.1005460
Modern parents are weak and won't spank their kids, making this wholesome comedy obsolete…
No.1005489
>>1005143
>Little Audrey was feminine and cute and just a little mischievous
>nuAudrey is a scratchy voiced tomboy with violent tendencies
I don't even care about this shit, but it still bothers me.
No.1005491
>>1005489
She's more than "just a little mischievous", she's a supernatural force of evil. As you can see.
No.1005495
>Giving the Harvey girls the current year treatment
These fuckers better let Casper stay dead.
No.1005501
>>1005495
Casper and Wendy already had the X-TREME treatment.
If Harvey Street does well I totally expect a current-year Wendy the Little Witch. Does Dreamworks have the rights to Casper and Wendy too?
She'll present being a witch as female empowerment, and then I'll kill myself and I'll be the friendly ghost.
No.1005513
Audrey is such a cutie I'm sure lots of guys bought her comics and fapped to her back in the mid 40s.
How could they not?
No.1005663
>>1005423
>It's canon
This is just as dumb as that Too Liud show where the annoying kids with huge heads put a literal fedora tipping shitlord in his place by playing an Rpg. The fuck is with these calarts retards wanting to force this "omg im such a nerd XDDDDD" shit even though they don't even have a surface level understanding of board games… Not that you'd know it, given how hard these hipster subhumans are going after /tg/ shit these days.
No.1005672
No.1005674
I kinda wanna read her comics now. I know they're simple and even dull by today's standards, but still an interesting piece of history.
Just like Archie Comics.
Anyone has scanned them all?
No.1005684
>>1005672
Watch the clip. The shitskin character keeps saying things like "it's canon" or "but it's not canon" which is a really awkward attempt at trying to be nerdy.
No.1005687
>>1005684
No, I do get that. I just think it's funny how much you're triggered.
But that's what I expect from someone who buys into identity politics. It's usually the Left, but in this case it's you: downright crying "MUH REPRESENTATION" and not literally but definetely in any relevant way calling it "cultural appropiation"
You collectivists are easy to predic and trigger, and it's always fun to watch.
MUH GEEK CULTURE!
Plus you're being the stereotype you're complaining about.
No.1005705
Darn, cowgirl Audrey is cute!
Cute!
No.1005711
>>1005687
1) You're a retarded faggot, 2) If they can't write anything remotely good, they shouldn't keep doing this dumb shit in an attempt to try and seem cool and trendy with RPGs and LARPing.
No.1005712
>>1005711
>If they can't write anything remotely good, they shouldn't
Sure, but this one hurts you personally because you're you're a collectivists and they're "appropiating your culture"
In fact you just said they shouldn't write it IF they can't write it how you like. In other words, you'd be ok with it if they represented your collective in an accurate, respectful way.
Or, in other words, MUH REPRESENTATION!
No.1005713
>>1005712
Now you're just throwing around buzzwords and trying to start an argument no one is even having.
No.1005715
>>1005713
I'm really not, it's just that I've seen teiggerings like that before.
This character is, to you, a bad and unfunny character? Ok.
Is he an 'offensive character? Well, that means you're weak and your identity is too dependent on your hobbies. I'm sorry, but there's no other way to say ir: you feel these characters are a bad example of MUH REPRESENTATION
No.1005716
>>1005715
You're the one using these words and jumping to conclusions about what it is others think and feel. Transparent attempts to pander, even when the writers are clearly ignorant of a topic, is insulting, not offensive. It's not about representing anything. No one is saying that the RPG community has been grievously defamed by dreamworks being unable to hire decent writers. It's just a shitty script written by some retards who want to seem trendy by making lazy references to pop culture. It's no different than the Big Bang Theory thinking using the word "emulator" is a punchline when all they've done is make a half-assed reference to something that some people know about.
No.1005721
>>1005716
>when the writers are clearly ignorant of a topic, is insulting, not offensive
>It's no different than the Big Bang Theory thinking using the word "emulator" is a punchline
I understand, but when I find writers that are like that I just don't watch their shit.
I cringe with BBT but I don't rant about it. Instead I just watch something else.
Larpers don't deserve good or accurate representation anyway, they're already a joke. By design their hobby contradicts any attempt to keep powerlevels hidden, and no one should be a geek unless they accept and embarace the closet. Being openly geeky is just wrong.
Bullies were right all this time. I'm a nerd, sure. My wife even got me a sweet couple of comics for my BD (Metabarons and Incal), but I live in the closet and that's why I have a wife to begin with.
No.1005723
>>1005721
In all fairness, I don't think anyone had any hopes of this show being good. It's a reboot no one wanted made by a studio that has been aggressively churning out awful cartoons at an unsettling pace. May as well call it shit and point out all the dumb shit they've done in the clips they've decided to supply to try and promote this abortion of a cartoon.
No.1005725
>>1005723
I think they'll do Betty Boop next…
Wait. Could they even do that? I mean, she is sexual…
No.1005728
Not that this ever looked like anything but a fake…
No.1005827
Would count as CGDCT today?
No.1006005
>>1005995
Exploitable.jpg.
No.1006007
>>1006005
You think so? I don't see how but don't let my lack of imagination stop you.
No.1006008
No.1006011
HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
I… I don't…
Whatever, fuck this Earth…
No.1006021
>>1005519
>Harveytoons intro
>Bugs Bunny
>Tom and Jerry
>The crow from Dumbo
Plagiarizing character designs was legal back then?
No.1006104
>>1006021
Not legal, but they're not even moving. I'm sure no one cared.
No.1006232
>>1005495
>These fuckers better let Casper stay dead
Dude, they've fingered Casper already plenty of times.
See >>1005501
No.1006235
>>1006234
Ghost don't have rights so it's OK to violate them.
I mean it's not OK but it's not wrong either.
No.1006250
>>1006235
Woo woo! Ghost blow job!
No.1006307
>>1006305
You haven't watched even episode 1, have you…
No.1006581
>>1005113
I really fucking hate those voices with a passion.
No.1006582
>>1006373
>b-but muh lolis
fuck off, its trash
No.1006585
>>1006382
"That's a pretty sexy little girl, Ollie."
No.1006601
>>1006585
Oh, hi!
How do you type without fingers, hands, feet, and actually nothing below the neck?
No.1006664
>>1006581
Are they adult or child voice actors?
No.1006682
>>1006104
It died during Ralph Bakshi's era, so it was just a shitty enslaving company that produced cartoons just to fill the programming on your average Saturday Morning TV block, Dreamworks bought some of the characters out of pity.
What's more sad is that people find this shit arousing.
No.1006693
>>1006682
>What's more sad is that people find this shit arousing
Well, then I guess you're the standard for what's arousing… Not like it's a matter of taste that's not even under the person's control.
No.1006818
I haven't been able to find a torrent or anything and right now I can't access my Netflix account because of a mixup with the credit card, which I'm trying to fix and should be fixed soon. Problem is, I could get my account back while I type this post or in a week from now.
But in case I get my Netflix account before someone else uploads the show, I will.
I just have to be directed to a tutorial about downloading the episodes straight from Netflix. I have a PC laptop and could use my wife's MacBook if it's easier/faster on Mac, so if there are methods that work only for Mac or Windows I'm good.
No.1006874
why in the world did they take away her red hair?
No.1006879
>>1006874
Dunno, but her hair wasn't always red.
Some times it was red-ish brown. I would like the hair red, of course (redheads are hotties) but brown hair has been canon.
No.1006887
>>1006883
Actually most people seem to be enjoying the new show.
No.1006889
>>1006888
Ask around, boiiiiii.
No.1006891
>>1006890
So far I've seen it's a well-received show.
Like it or not, seems to be doing well.
No.1006893
>>1006892
My proof is literally every single review so far. Remember I said it's well-received.
No.1006895
>>1006893
So you're attempting to use weasel words? 3 users reviews is hardly a reception at all.
No.1006897
>>1006896
Pretending to be retarded is still being retarded.
No.1006900
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>1006894
No, I couln't.
Liar. I don't even know much about SU and even I know it has plenty of detractors. I've seen more anti-SU vídeos than I've seen SU episodes.
>>1006895
Those aren't the only reviews. Look, I didn't say it's a good show, did I?
I didn't say it's a bad show either, I just said it's well-received, and it is.
No.1006904
>>1006900
>Look, I didn't say it's a good show, did I?
Nope. You just made a bunch of vague, bait-y statements and then tried to brush off everyone who asked you to back up your claims.
No.1006913
>>1006874
Probably the same reason that in addition to making her black, they took away Lil Dot's signature black and red color scheme.
No.1007134
>>1006986
>Lolis with tight shorts
They must do it on purpose!! It's impossible not to get hard from this!
No.1007139
>>1007134
It's just like in the old days the Harvey Comics girls were always showing their undies.
No.1007164
>>1006682
>What's more sad is that people find this shit arousing.
I didn't, until you mentioned it.
Fuck you.
No.1007329
>>1007164
So pervs aren't born… They are made!
By the internet and image boards!
Ok, this post started as a joke but now I'm thinking about it and it's kinda true…
No.1007470
For what I see Frufru is everyone's fav.
No.1007569
No.1007590
>>1007569
What? What's wrong with it?
No.1007607
>>1007590
Doesn't look right.
No.1007757
>>1007607
I like the pic, but also I see what you mean.
No.1007890
>>1005113
what a fucking trash fire
No.1007907
>>1007890
What? How?
Even if you dislike it that's ok but I mean, a trash fire?
No.1008104
I don't like the fact that they left Phoebe out, but since they're all about representation now they should have made her Asian and that, plus the big glasses and the hair could have made her look like Phoebe from Hey Arnold.
No.1008132
Since this is already a thread about Harvey Comics (kinda) and I think it'd be rude to make a new thread just for this, I'm dumping the entire Casper and the Spectrals comic here.
Because it has an interesting reinterpretation of Wendy and Casper and Hot Stuff.
I really hope we get to see Wendy in season 2 of HSK…
No.1008275
>>1008274
The End.
And it's unlikely that we'll ever see this X-TREME team ever again.
No.1008481
Things are easy when you're big in Japan…
No.1008486
>>1006382
simon is a hack that hasn't been relevant since like 2014
No.1008499
>>1008486
You trolling? Simon is awesome.
No.1009070
Oh. It's literally just some cuckchan faggot trying to make this shit show seem relevant.
No.1009080
>>1008499
>>1008486
You're both right.
No.1009117
No.1012981
Does anyone know if there is a PDF trove somewhere or any other means of reading the Little Audrey comics online? I'm trying to verify some information I've seen on Wikipedia in relation to it. For example
>"The ETC Sitter," Playful Little Audrey #75 (April 1968) supposedly says "Audrey Smith" within
> "Little Audrey & Melvin and The Secret of Silent Island" (issue unknown of the 61-issue "Little Audrey and Melvin" series), where Lucretia visits an uncle named Bruce Bagley and refers to Audrey's mom as Mrs. Smith
In general I just want to read all the Lucretia issues.
No.1012983
Here's one short I managed to find. I hope the HSG and Lucretia become closer in s2.
No.1012990
>>1012981
I don't think Harvey Comics have been properly archived digitally. If someone has a complete collection that someone is hoarding.
No.1012991
>>1012983
>it was a accident
Lucretia is cute! CUTE!
No.1013364
>>1008481
Makes me think, do these shows do well in other countries?
Can we know what The viewership is?
No.1013906
Damn, I'm in love with Dot!
She's just gorgeous!
No.1014030
>>1013906
Everything about this picture, from the thin clean lines to the non-contrasting colors screams "BASIC". It baffles me when shows like this and nuPPG manage to fuck up super simple designs that require a minimal amount of talent to draw.
No.1018846
The Bow totally stole the show.
No.1018874
>>1014030
The thin lines don't look that bad when the designs have some level of detail. It looks really bad in NuPPG because the shapes of the mcs are so simple and basic they can't stand out at all.
No.1020550
No.1021031
Dot and Bow game me boners.
No.1021034
>>1018846
>>1020550
>>1021031
Anon, why are you necro-bumping a dead thread?