The Mysterious Mr. Enter / Jonathan Rozanski's "Growing Around" - IndieGoGo Campaign Failed, John going off the deep end, "Turning Red" is ignorant about 9/11 (later retracted)

  • Thread starter Thread starter LN 910
  • Start date Start date
I never got why he's so hell-bent on "fixing" bad stories either. Flip-Flopped wasn't even a good concept, yet he insisted it was and now we have the glorious trainwreck that is Growing Around.
Well, real critic’s job is to examine what someone was trying to do and express whether or not they succeeded. John is bad at this, but I think he understands that concept. But maybe he thinks that because he believes to know what they were trying to do and where they went wrong, he’s now qualified to fix what is was they did.
Like most critics who assume they’re talented writers because they can critique.
 
This is definitely an autism thing. Part of the therapy for autism is learning what nitpicks to make and what to let go. Enter has clearly not had this class.
Critics like Enter seem to take the approach of grading like a lazy teacher. Instead of considering the work as a whole and using a rubrick to determine a fair grade, they start out at 100% at take off points for everything they find wrong. This way they can justify their opinion of a work by finding x amount of nitpicks which "proves" that the work is objectively bad. You ever had a teacher that would take off like 5 points for every misspelled word, misplaced comma, wrong font, etc? He reminds me of them.
 
Critics like Enter seem to take the approach of grading like a lazy teacher. Instead of considering the work as a whole and using a rubrick to determine a fair grade, they start out at 100% at take off points for everything they find wrong. This way they can justify their opinion of a work by finding x amount of nitpicks which "proves" that the work is objectively bad. You ever had a teacher that would take off like 5 points for every misspelled work, misplaced comma, wrong font, etc? He reminds me of them.
Shit, that's a perfect analogy for this.
 
"I notice small details and stuff". So you're only good for nitpicking and otherwise have nothing insightful to bring to the table?
I love it when Enter unintentionally says unbelievably stupid shit like this. It just shows how out of touch he is. Does he actually believe that all you need to make a good show is to "notice small details"? I know he didn't really have anything he could say to answer the question but he could have at least deflected or made up some bullshit about how his experience analyzing cartoons for a living allowed him to piece together a script he thought was good.

I'm listening to an interview he did on the Alpha Jay Show and even the comments are pointing out one of his responses killed any chance of the show succeeding. When asked how he would market the show, Enter answered "I don't know how necessary that would be," proving he has no idea how any of this works. He probably thought all 250k of his subscribers would fall in love with the show and talk about it to their friends and make the show an unprecedented success for indie animators because it's just so good.
 
Critics like Enter seem to take the approach of grading like a lazy teacher. Instead of considering the work as a whole and using a rubrick to determine a fair grade, they start out at 100% at take off points for everything they find wrong. This way they can justify their opinion of a work by finding x amount of nitpicks which "proves" that the work is objectively bad. You ever had a teacher that would take off like 5 points for every misspelled word, misplaced comma, wrong font, etc? He reminds me of them.
This is literally how he did his MLP reviews back in the day. Watch one and pay attention to the little exclamation marks he puts in the top left corner:
And, of course, this also applies to his atrocity notebook:
mr__enter_s_notebook__seahorse_seashell_party_by_mrenter_d6sg67a.png
mr__enter_s_notebook__brian_s_a_bad_father_by_mrenter_d7p39yp.png
 
And, of course, this also applies to his atrocity notebook:

Apart from the crossdressing crap, this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen from Enter.

What is the purpose of listing the writers or directors of the episodes? I don't know if he does these reviews anymore, but if he didn't want to incite harassment on these innocent people, why put in that information at all?
 
Apart from the crossdressing crap, this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen from Enter.

What is the purpose of listing the writers or directors of the episodes? I don't know if he does these reviews anymore, but if he didn't want to incite harassment on these innocent people, why put in that information at all?
My guess was he was trying to make a nemesis. Someone who’s work he consistently hated that he could bring up over and over again for “fan amusement.”
He sort of did that with Mr. Lawrence from spongebob
 
Apart from the crossdressing crap, this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen from Enter.

What is the purpose of listing the writers or directors of the episodes? I don't know if he does these reviews anymore, but if he didn't want to incite harassment on these innocent people, why put in that information at all?
He doesn't do that anymore, but he did it back in the day, just because AUTISM.
 
My guess was he was trying to make a nemesis. Someone who’s work he consistently hated that he could bring up over and over again for “fan amusement.”
He sort of did that with Mr. Lawrence from spongebob
I think he was trying to identify a writing style for these people, like he did with Friendship is Magic. It's what led him to accuse Zeus Cervas of being a sadist.
Like @The Pink Panther said, he stopped a while ago. I'm guessing he felt whatever findings he had were inaccurate.
 
I think he was trying to identify a writing style for these people, like he did with Friendship is Magic. It's what led him to accuse Zeus Cervas of being a sadist.
Like @The Pink Panther said, he stopped a while ago. I'm guessing he felt whatever findings he had were inaccurate.
That or he knew these would be used against him and growing around so he distanced himself from the scorecard gimmick
 
That or he knew these would be used against him and growing around so he distanced himself from the scorecard gimmick
I would love to see Enter review his old Growing Around work, like the novel. He clearly doesn't care about it anymore since it's non-canon and so distanced from his current work but I don't think he likes to talk about it because he doesn't want to admit he made something that sucks. He shows no humility at all and to me that says he hasn't grown.

Still going through the old Alpha Jay interview and it's pretty clear Enter wasn't prepared to answer certain questions. I know this is old as fuck but it's still relevent to current Enter. I'm at the part where Jay asks why Enter said he'd do episodes about war and not episodes about alcohol and Enter stumbles a bit before saying he's more comfortable writing about things he knows about. Like really? What branch of the armed forces did Enter serve in? And I thought his dad was an alcoholic?
 
Last edited:
And, of course, this also applies to his atrocity notebook:

I'm ashamed to say I used that notecard format frequently when I was younger. Enter even made a rubric for how to grade atrocities, and part of the reason I stopped being a fan was that he couldn't follow his own rules.
So, you've probably noticed that I didn't put Atrocity note pages in my two previous Animated Atrocities review. Actually it seems that a surprising number of people didn't (or kept quiet about them). I'm actually pretty happy about that because I don't know, they kind of made my videos feel a little more low-budget, like I couldn't be bothered to put actual footage in the synopsis area. But let's not abandon them completely. Recently I stopped taking requests because it got way too out of hand. How about let's play fair. My Atrocity notebook template is now a "request submission." However, if you fill it out wrong I'm just going to disregard it altogether. And a lot of people have sort of filled it out improperly or judged things too harshly. So this is going to a normal guide to how to fill one out (oh and disregard the 1001. I'll make a better one for that).

  • Alright, episode title, show, episode number, writers, and directors can usually be found on imdb.com. If the animation in question is something that no one has ever heard of and you can't find the creators on it, just write "writers/editors/staff unknown."
But now to the part you're all interested in. How to not over-bash an episode in any of the categories.

Cringe-Inducing Audio: Music, sound effects, sound mixing, or voice acting that forces the listener some distress.
1 in C-IV: The music in the episode is bland, generic, or uninspired.
3 in C-IV: The lyrics to such songs are rather stupid, like a song about socks. In the voice acting territory, a main character has a particularly obnoxious voice or style of speaking.
4 in C-IV: Characters attempt to sing, but aren't good at it.
5 in C-IV: Sound effects such as nails on chalkboard, and absurdly loud explosions are used.
7 in C-IV: A main character has a grating voice.
9 in C-IV: EVERY character has a grating voice.
10 in C-IV: You shift between not being able to hear anything and covering your ears.

Cringe-Inducing Visuals: Visuals that in some way force the viewer to look away from the screen. It may be badly abused gross out, a character in phyiscal or emotional pain, or seizure-inducing lights
1 in C-IV: This animation has a character in slight discomfort that is somewhat unpleasing to watch [Courage's appearance in Ball of Revenge]
3 in C-IV: There is a constant source of light gross out, or one particular moment that attempts to gross you out [Spongebob's face in Spongebob, You're Fired!]
4 in C-IV: There is a constant source of gross out that may tick off the squeemish, or there is one moment that goes above and beyond [Squidward's toenail in House Fancy]
7 in C-IV: The episode goes above and beyond to gross out the viewer by throwing in pus, blood, or fecal matter [The Splinter]
9 in C-IV: The episode is constantly at Squidward's toenail from House Fancy for the entirety of the episode.
10 in C-IV: The episode has seizure inducing lights that put hundreds of kids in the hospital [Electric Soldier Porygon]

Lackluster Writing: Writing that fails the basic concepts of storytelling, lacks cohesiveness or polish, and wreaks of laziness.
1 in LW: A story is told extremely by-the-book with little divergence from the beaten path.
2 in LW: A story is given slight amounts of filler/unnecessary moments (+1 modifier for 11 minute episodes; +2 for 7 minute episodes)
3 in LW: The story has dents here and there, but you can still follow what's going on during a first viewing.
5 in LW: Logic is thrown to the wind to have whatever the writer want to happen, happen.
6 in LW: The plot only seems to move when the writer pulls something out of their ass (Johnny's Royal Flush)
7 in LW: The story was mostly or entirely ripped off from somewhere. Or the writers use a concept that abandons all logic.
8 in LW: The story was mostly or entirely ripped off from a story within the same franchise.
9 in LW: The story has no sense of coherence. You could type random characters on your keyboard and come up with a better story.
10 in LW: Nothing of substance was even ATTEMPTED.

Annoyance: This is the most subjective category so hints cannot be given. This is generally used to give extra points where the other categories do not apply. Just remember that once you say that something is the most annoying thing out there, nothing can really take that title away. Always estimate conservatively.

Disturbing Content: This does not apply to shows that are trying to be disturbing, such as The Gregory Horror Show. This category is for when things like the writers put suicidal themes in episodes for children. Remember that what disturbs you may not disturb everyone.
1 in DC: Those characters are staring into my soul.... but in all seriously, some uncanny character movements
3 in DC: It's hinted that a character has gone through some particularly severe torment. (Keep in mind that this may be black comedy).
4 in DC: All of the characters live in the uncanny valley.
6 in DC: There is extremely unsettling imagery that goes beyond just mere gross-out.
7 in DC: There is a vicious monster tormenting a character [The A Pal for Gary monster]
9 in DC: It's expressly stated that a child thinks one of his parents raping the other is normal sex [1 Night in Gottlieb]
10 in DC: I have personally never come across something that I believed is worth 10/10 in Disturbing Content. God have mercy on the poor soul who truly finds this, beyond horrifying imagery, beyond terrifying concepts. A 7 out of 10 would give someone nightmares, a 10 out of 10 would truly psychologically scar them. Do not use this rating lightly.

Unnecessary Cruelty: A character who does not truly receive it is at the receiving end of misery. Judge the animation as a whole and not just the instant.
1 in UC: Someone stole this character's sweet roll.
2 in UC: This character suffers some bruises for no reason.
3 in UC: The character suffers a minor loss of personal belongings (ex: the episode ends with him missing his wallet)
5 in UC: These characters have their talents, hobbies, or lifestyle mocked by someone they know/trust 'Putting Your Hoof Down]
8 in UC: This character is told that his neighbors, friends, and even family would be better off if he was never born [It's a Wishful Life]
9 in UC: This character is literally tortured for comedy. [A Pal for Gary]
10 in UC: This character is psychologically tormented to the point where he is contemplating suicide. [One Coarse Meal]

Rancid Morals: Not everyone who tries to teach a lesson has good intentions. Sometimes it's a failed parody, sometime's it's the writer not thinking everything through, but sometimes it's purely malicious. Remember that the episode has to specifically be trying to teach this. If it was by accident, it goes under "unfortunate implications." (and/or lackluster writing)

1 in RM: "Get along with people or evil ice monsters will kill all of you"
2 in RM: "Yes violence is sometimes the answer. I'll leave you to figure it out for yourself."
3 in RM: "You're absolutely perfect in who you are. You don't have any flaws whatsoever."
4 in RM: "Being gay is not a choice. I learned this by choosing to get injected with a vaccine that turned me gay." [Family Gay]
5 in RM: "Hitting people is wrong, unless that person is hitting you in order to teach you a lesson." [Arthur's Big Hit]
6 in RM: "It's okay to be a useless freeloader, as long as you're chasing your dreams!" [The Groovenians]
7 in RM: "Crying DOES solve all of your problems after all!" [Stuck in the Wringer] (a moral so terrible it's hard to take seriously, thank god.)
8 in RM: "You see those people that look different than us? Yeah, they're lesser beings than us."
9 in RM: "You should really consider suicide sometimes, you're just taking up space if you don't"
10 in RM: "You should stay in an abusive relationship for the abuser's benefit" [Seahorse Seashell Party]

Low production values: Sometimes animation is used to get a cheap buck out of those who will buy anything animated out of their kids. That being said, keep in mind that not everything is going to be Disney. Try to keep a -1 or -2 modifier to indie projects that really don't have a budget. It all depends on how much you think they're trying.

1 in LPD: Some assets are reused from an earlier episode. It's only noticeable if you know where to look.
3 in LPD: Some assets are reused from an earlier episode. It's easy to see.
5 in LPD: There are large segments of the episode that are not animated. Previous clips are replayed in order to save quick buck.
9 in LPD: This animation would not pass on Newgrounds.
10 in LPD: It's just a still frame with someone talking, entirely.

Unfortunate Implications: It's like Rancid morals, except done by accident. Because of that fact, unfortunate implications tend to be worse and more common than rancid morals. Use that guide with a -3 modifier.

Character derailment: This in fusion with Low production values makes it truly difficult to have high scoring animation because low production values are almost exclusive to one-shot things, and character derailment is exclusive to ongoing shows. Character derailment is when a character does something that well, tarnishes their character whether it be out of character or not. The numbers on this vary from series-to-series way too much to give any sort of useful guide.


When you're done, add up all of the numbers out of 100. If you've done everything right, you should actually have a number that's surprisingly small. Please remember that Animated Atrocities are the ONLY requests I take, and I'll only consider them if someone fills this form out.
 
I'm at the part where Jay asks why Enter said he'd do episodes about war and not episodes about alcohol and Enter stumbles a bit before saying he's more comfortable writing about things he knows about. Like really? What branch of the armed forces did Enter serve in? And I thought his dad was an alcoholic?

What? That's such a bad answer. All you have to say is, "This is a children's show and adult things like that are irrelevant to what I write about."
Of course, GA brings up a lot of questions that can't be deflected with this answer so nevermind. I give up.

I'm ashamed to say I used that notecard format frequently when I was younger. Enter even made a rubric for how to grade atrocities, and part of the reason I stopped being a fan was that he couldn't follow his own rules.
So, you've probably noticed that I didn't put Atrocity note pages in my two previous Animated Atrocities review. Actually it seems that a surprising number of people didn't (or kept quiet about them). I'm actually pretty happy about that because I don't know, they kind of made my videos feel a little more low-budget, like I couldn't be bothered to put actual footage in the synopsis area. But let's not abandon them completely. Recently I stopped taking requests because it got way too out of hand. How about let's play fair. My Atrocity notebook template is now a "request submission." However, if you fill it out wrong I'm just going to disregard it altogether. And a lot of people have sort of filled it out improperly or judged things too harshly. So this is going to a normal guide to how to fill one out (oh and disregard the 1001. I'll make a better one for that).

  • Alright, episode title, show, episode number, writers, and directors can usually be found on imdb.com. If the animation in question is something that no one has ever heard of and you can't find the creators on it, just write "writers/editors/staff unknown."
But now to the part you're all interested in. How to not over-bash an episode in any of the categories.

Cringe-Inducing Audio: Music, sound effects, sound mixing, or voice acting that forces the listener some distress.
1 in C-IV: The music in the episode is bland, generic, or uninspired.
3 in C-IV: The lyrics to such songs are rather stupid, like a song about socks. In the voice acting territory, a main character has a particularly obnoxious voice or style of speaking.
4 in C-IV: Characters attempt to sing, but aren't good at it.
5 in C-IV: Sound effects such as nails on chalkboard, and absurdly loud explosions are used.
7 in C-IV: A main character has a grating voice.
9 in C-IV: EVERY character has a grating voice.
10 in C-IV: You shift between not being able to hear anything and covering your ears.

Cringe-Inducing Visuals: Visuals that in some way force the viewer to look away from the screen. It may be badly abused gross out, a character in phyiscal or emotional pain, or seizure-inducing lights
1 in C-IV: This animation has a character in slight discomfort that is somewhat unpleasing to watch [Courage's appearance in Ball of Revenge]
3 in C-IV: There is a constant source of light gross out, or one particular moment that attempts to gross you out [Spongebob's face in Spongebob, You're Fired!]
4 in C-IV: There is a constant source of gross out that may tick off the squeemish, or there is one moment that goes above and beyond [Squidward's toenail in House Fancy]
7 in C-IV: The episode goes above and beyond to gross out the viewer by throwing in pus, blood, or fecal matter [The Splinter]
9 in C-IV: The episode is constantly at Squidward's toenail from House Fancy for the entirety of the episode.
10 in C-IV: The episode has seizure inducing lights that put hundreds of kids in the hospital [Electric Soldier Porygon]

Lackluster Writing: Writing that fails the basic concepts of storytelling, lacks cohesiveness or polish, and wreaks of laziness.
1 in LW: A story is told extremely by-the-book with little divergence from the beaten path.
2 in LW: A story is given slight amounts of filler/unnecessary moments (+1 modifier for 11 minute episodes; +2 for 7 minute episodes)
3 in LW: The story has dents here and there, but you can still follow what's going on during a first viewing.
5 in LW: Logic is thrown to the wind to have whatever the writer want to happen, happen.
6 in LW: The plot only seems to move when the writer pulls something out of their ass (Johnny's Royal Flush)
7 in LW: The story was mostly or entirely ripped off from somewhere. Or the writers use a concept that abandons all logic.
8 in LW: The story was mostly or entirely ripped off from a story within the same franchise.
9 in LW: The story has no sense of coherence. You could type random characters on your keyboard and come up with a better story.
10 in LW: Nothing of substance was even ATTEMPTED.

Annoyance: This is the most subjective category so hints cannot be given. This is generally used to give extra points where the other categories do not apply. Just remember that once you say that something is the most annoying thing out there, nothing can really take that title away. Always estimate conservatively.

Disturbing Content: This does not apply to shows that are trying to be disturbing, such as The Gregory Horror Show. This category is for when things like the writers put suicidal themes in episodes for children. Remember that what disturbs you may not disturb everyone.
1 in DC: Those characters are staring into my soul.... but in all seriously, some uncanny character movements
3 in DC: It's hinted that a character has gone through some particularly severe torment. (Keep in mind that this may be black comedy).
4 in DC: All of the characters live in the uncanny valley.
6 in DC: There is extremely unsettling imagery that goes beyond just mere gross-out.
7 in DC: There is a vicious monster tormenting a character [The A Pal for Gary monster]
9 in DC: It's expressly stated that a child thinks one of his parents raping the other is normal sex [1 Night in Gottlieb]
10 in DC: I have personally never come across something that I believed is worth 10/10 in Disturbing Content. God have mercy on the poor soul who truly finds this, beyond horrifying imagery, beyond terrifying concepts. A 7 out of 10 would give someone nightmares, a 10 out of 10 would truly psychologically scar them. Do not use this rating lightly.

Unnecessary Cruelty: A character who does not truly receive it is at the receiving end of misery. Judge the animation as a whole and not just the instant.
1 in UC: Someone stole this character's sweet roll.
2 in UC: This character suffers some bruises for no reason.
3 in UC: The character suffers a minor loss of personal belongings (ex: the episode ends with him missing his wallet)
5 in UC: These characters have their talents, hobbies, or lifestyle mocked by someone they know/trust 'Putting Your Hoof Down]
8 in UC: This character is told that his neighbors, friends, and even family would be better off if he was never born [It's a Wishful Life]
9 in UC: This character is literally tortured for comedy. [A Pal for Gary]
10 in UC: This character is psychologically tormented to the point where he is contemplating suicide. [One Coarse Meal]

Rancid Morals: Not everyone who tries to teach a lesson has good intentions. Sometimes it's a failed parody, sometime's it's the writer not thinking everything through, but sometimes it's purely malicious. Remember that the episode has to specifically be trying to teach this. If it was by accident, it goes under "unfortunate implications." (and/or lackluster writing)

1 in RM: "Get along with people or evil ice monsters will kill all of you"
2 in RM: "Yes violence is sometimes the answer. I'll leave you to figure it out for yourself."
3 in RM: "You're absolutely perfect in who you are. You don't have any flaws whatsoever."
4 in RM: "Being gay is not a choice. I learned this by choosing to get injected with a vaccine that turned me gay." [Family Gay]
5 in RM: "Hitting people is wrong, unless that person is hitting you in order to teach you a lesson." [Arthur's Big Hit]
6 in RM: "It's okay to be a useless freeloader, as long as you're chasing your dreams!" [The Groovenians]
7 in RM: "Crying DOES solve all of your problems after all!" [Stuck in the Wringer] (a moral so terrible it's hard to take seriously, thank god.)
8 in RM: "You see those people that look different than us? Yeah, they're lesser beings than us."
9 in RM: "You should really consider suicide sometimes, you're just taking up space if you don't"
10 in RM: "You should stay in an abusive relationship for the abuser's benefit" [Seahorse Seashell Party]

Low production values: Sometimes animation is used to get a cheap buck out of those who will buy anything animated out of their kids. That being said, keep in mind that not everything is going to be Disney. Try to keep a -1 or -2 modifier to indie projects that really don't have a budget. It all depends on how much you think they're trying.

1 in LPD: Some assets are reused from an earlier episode. It's only noticeable if you know where to look.
3 in LPD: Some assets are reused from an earlier episode. It's easy to see.
5 in LPD: There are large segments of the episode that are not animated. Previous clips are replayed in order to save quick buck.
9 in LPD: This animation would not pass on Newgrounds.
10 in LPD: It's just a still frame with someone talking, entirely.

Unfortunate Implications: It's like Rancid morals, except done by accident. Because of that fact, unfortunate implications tend to be worse and more common than rancid morals. Use that guide with a -3 modifier.

Character derailment: This in fusion with Low production values makes it truly difficult to have high scoring animation because low production values are almost exclusive to one-shot things, and character derailment is exclusive to ongoing shows. Character derailment is when a character does something that well, tarnishes their character whether it be out of character or not. The numbers on this vary from series-to-series way too much to give any sort of useful guide.


When you're done, add up all of the numbers out of 100. If you've done everything right, you should actually have a number that's surprisingly small. Please remember that Animated Atrocities are the ONLY requests I take, and I'll only consider them if someone fills this form out.

Who would follow these anal rules just to give an opinion? That's madness.
 
I would love to see Enter review his old Growing Around work, like the novel. He clearly doesn't care about it anymore since it's non-canon and so distanced from his current work but I don't think he likes to talk about it because he doesn't want to admit he made something that sucks. He shows no humility at all and to me that says he hasn't grown.

Still going through the old Alpha Jay interview and it's pretty clear Enter wasn't prepared to answer certain questions. I know this is old as fuck but it's still relevent to current Enter. I'm at the part where Jay asks why Enter said he'd do episodes about war and not episodes about alcohol and Enter stumbles a bit before saying he's more comfortable writing about things he knows about. Like really? What branch of the armed forces did Enter serve in? And I thought his dad was an alcoholic?
I can kind of understand alcohol just not being a thing in this world, but that reasoning he gave is really dumb. All he needed to say was that booze doesn't exist in the GA universe and nobody'd care, instead he sounds pompous by saying he knows about something he doesn't.
 
What? That's such a bad answer. All you have to say is, "This is a children's show and adult things like that are irrelevant to what I write about."
Of course, GA brings up a lot of questions that can't be deflected with this answer so nevermind. I give up.
Tthis is the show that doesn't sugar coat things, remember? There's literally an episode about that girl's mom dying. Oh but there's no hospitals lol because that wouldn't make sense.
 
Back