The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Deronn_solo
Train. Punch. Kick. Ki blast. Scream. Die. Return. Train. Punch. Kick. Ki blast. Die. Return. Punch. Kick. Ki blast. Scream. Die. Return.

DBZ in a nutshell. Legit shit, there. I have no idea how anyone could find that amusing or even close to it. Granted, I like Bleach, but I believe The Soul Society arc offered a bit more merit in terms of actual engagine plots and character development.

Yeah but all that punching, kicking, screaming, dying, and returning is pretty great when it happens. 🙂

@DC, there's multiple kids at my school who think Kobe could hold Jordan to 15 points. 🙂 🙂 🙂

No Aurb, all of that screaming and shit, will lead to my future child dying of SIDS.

Skillz, KEK. I do think Jordan vs Kobe would be rather close, though.

The Mamba's a better shooter and ball-handler with superior footwork and great lock-down defense when he actually tries and gets in that "Zone". MJ the better dunker, inside scorer, defender and shit, buy iy would still be mad close.

Edit: You are talking about one-on-one, right?

Originally posted by Deronn_solo
No Aurb, all of that screaming and shit, will lead to my future child dying of SIDS.

I'm sure you and Kyp will find a way to save your adopted child. 🙂

Originally posted by Fated Xtasy
Avatar, LoK, DBZ, Batman the animated series, TmnT, Justice League, Superman the animated series, Gravity Falls, and Adventure time are all children shows but they have enough to intrigue adults.

Nothing should be dismissed just because it's for children,

we've got dark and gritty story lines(such as those in batman) from a huge amount of children's shows. These programs aren't just for kids, they've got fanbases of all ages, especially TMNT and Batman.

So simply dismissing something as a child's program, is a good way to miss out on something good.

Hell, even the renown critics Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel consider Beauty and the beast to be one of the best movies of all time.

You don't like it? Cool, your opinion bud. But children's shows aren't just for kids(for the most part)

DC, ehhhh. Mike's also stronger and has much bigger hands, which is actually a huge edge. Furthermore, Kobe is hilariously inefficient compared to Mike. In a theoretical game, Kobe gets his 30, but Mike does it more efficiently and effectively.

Originally posted by Aurbere
I'm sure you and Kyp will find a way to save your adopted child. 🙂

Or I could just move to the DBZ universe to revive him/her. Allah knows, everyone in that shitty show dies and returns in Ad Infinitum.

Originally posted by XSUPREMEXSKILLZ
DC, ehhhh. Mike's also stronger and has much bigger hands, which is actually a huge edge. Furthermore, Kobe is hilariously inefficient compared to Mike. In a theoretical game, Kobe gets his 30, but Mike does it more efficiently and effectively.

Hmmm, I can agree. 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

Originally posted by FreshestSlice
DBZ aside, since that's the most overrated and rehashed thing I've ever seen, those shows weren't for the crowd that watches Steven Universe. Well Gravity Falls and Adventure time might be, but then again those shows fell off a while ago. That being said, I don't hate Steven Universe because it's for children. I hate it because it's annoying. Contrary to Neph's response, I've seen it more than once. My little sister, who's 9 by the way(meant to be intrigued) loves it.

Having an adult fanbase isn't an achievement. MLP has an adult fanbase. Steven Universe is far from dark and gritty. It has moments of tension and deals with "social issues," something I'm sure young children don't care about, but it's far from dark and gritty. It's practically a melodrama/comedy.

I'm 20 years old. I've seen cartoons. It's not like I'm 80 and just found out what a tv is. I've seen the show and don't like it for plenty of other reasons.

That's great. I often base my opinions off of what others think, but if I was a rational being who could think for myself, I'd say I don't care what Ebert thought. Beauty and the Beast is a fine movie. Still for children. But again, that wasn't the point anyway.

Actually kids shows are marketed towards children, which is why they are children's networks. Steven Universe is clearly a show for a younger audience and the fact that you like it doesn't change that. Also, I find it ironic that you say, "Your opinion bud," and then fallow it up with an opinion, but whatever.

Too long to respond to everything.

Essentially I'm saying shows have "grown up" tremendously over the last couple years, there's not a lot of coddling of children and there are some really interesting themes. Sure, The shows are on TV networks for kids.

Steven Universe and AT aren't at all close to what Batman and Superman did, not at all. But they have lots of intriguing ideas, comments and messages. Is it a children's show? Yah, but it's not a "Phineas and Ferb" type of show, or a typical kinda show for that matter.

Avatar and LOK? They obviously take several risks and do incredible things with their writing, artwork and voice direction. Yet they are, you describe it, "on networks that market to children." So again, children's show aren't entirely for children.

After all, one huge example I could point out is the WB shorts featuring bugs bunny or even Tom and Jerry.

SU and AT are way past what Batman and Superman did. They're different genre's but in terms of sophisticated storytelling, themes and maturity they leave those two in the dust. Also alot of the older audience for Avatar and LoK also watch SU. Not sure why you'd think differently.

SU is darker than you give it credit for FS. You must have missed the episode with an extended metaphor about rape and consent. Handled with maturity, subtlety and grace. And it's for all ages, children and up. Not exclusively for kids.

Over the Garden Wall is another great show btw.

No, I've seen it. I just don't think mock grit is the same as actually dealing with social issues. But the fact that it needs to use metaphor only proves my point.

Originally posted by Deronn_solo
Skillz, KEK. I do think Jordan vs Kobe would be rather close, though.

The Mamba's a better shooter and ball-handler with superior footwork and great lock-down defense when he actually tries and gets in that "Zone". MJ the better dunker, inside scorer, defender and shit, buy iy would still be mad close.

Edit: You are talking about one-on-one, right?

You're kidding right? A better shooter? Maybe from beyond the arc at BEST. A better ball handler? Please. Superior footwork? Not even close. Great lock defender? LOL. MJ was one of the greatest defenders of all time. It's not mad close, don't kid yourself.

Jordan was flat out superior to Kobe. It isn't close.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You're kidding right? A better shooter? Maybe from beyond the arc at BEST. A better ball handler? Please. Superior footwork? Not even close. Great lock defender? LOL. MJ was one of the greatest defenders of all time. It's not mad close, don't kid yourself.

Yeah, I stick by everything I said. You coming in saying uh-uh doesn't excatly prove shit, LAWL. MJ isn't stomping Kobe one-on-one.

/discussion.

Kobe's probably a better handler in terms of quickness, but mike's mittens make him unstoppable in transition. Kobe's footwork is pretty up to par, and Kobe can lock down if he puts his mind to it. Mike to me is definitively superior, though.

Spoiler:
and then there's Lebron.

Yeah, I'm not denying tha Mike is > Kobe - I'm just saying it's more than ridiculous to suggest that MJ is stomping The Mamba one-on-one.

Nothing suggests Kobe is comparable to MJ on any level. Lebron is more comparable although he's not beating MJ one on one either. You can "stick by" what you said but it means nothing without any sort of evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJuMpaTviqE

Mike vs. Kobe will always depend on how many stupid decisions Kobe plans on making.

Lebron, at least to me, is one of the dudes fully capable of beating MJ one on one, while Kevin Durant has the best shot of any non-center or PF.