3 ms·
And the one image demostrates the opposite of what they claim. I think this is just clickbait... find something popular, trash it, and use the backlash to driv
by Turing_Machine 4y ago
And the one image demostrates the opposite of what they claim.
I think this is just clickbait... find something popular, trash it, and use the backlash to drive ad revenue.
Then again, it is vice.com, so yeah, that's probably a given.
- edgyquant 4y agoHow is this trashing anything?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Apocryphon 4y agoI dunno, that screenshot does look rather conventional and cheap. It looks like a still from Doctor Who or something.
- malfist 4y agoBut is it what the post claims? Dark, overly saturated, lit with neon colors, caked on makeup and puckered seams in the costumes? I don't see any of that in their sole "example" It doesn't help that their example has, like, 10 pixels. Guess the pixel factory ran out when they got their screenshot.
- the_af 4y ago> I think this is just clickbait... find something popular, trash it, They don't trash it. This is what they actually say about the overall quality of The Sandman: > Against all odds, Netflix’s adaptation of The Sandman is a very good show. "A very good show". They then go on to claim there's a general "look" of cheapness to Netflix shows which means one can usually tell something was produced by Netflix. They describe some general characteristics, and they don't do the best job at actually displaying examples of said characteristics. Though I do know what they mean, having watched a few episodes of the show (which I like).