HOME | DD

Description
IMPORTANT NOTE: Please do not harass the user for my thoughts on his reviews or his different opinions. It makes you look immature, mean, and someone you wouldn't hang out with. Thank you for reading this note.

YEP. You read the title. The HugeTFPFan scorecard is popular enough that I have the feeling to produce another scorecard. This time, it's the man who built Dump Towers, (or TheTrueLuigiFan. don't ask me how I found out his elongated name). Again, respect to his scorecard style and review structure, although it isn't exactly what I envisioned. The fonts are very similar but not quite a direct match, neither are the effects on the ratings, lists, and all that. But did this scorecard surprise you or something? Well, I'm gleeful to explain this main's mixed history in reviewing so on with the review!

HISTORY: Although me and TTLF aren't as close as friends like I was to HugeTFPFan, we still check each other reviews. Nothing too personal where a flame war was unleashed, but it's mostly normal. I think the first time I get to know TTLF is on Twitter while looking up my name, seeing if I had some sort of a cult following on that site. He was one of those people who were infrequently mentioning me and all the unpopular opinions I made. I would say that it's fun seeing them as they use my opinions for fun, whether if it's them making memes or just comparing people to me. So yeah, there's Twitter, but what about DeviantArt? Well, I noticed his scorecards on SpongeBob SquarePants, Steven Universe, OK K.O.! Let's Be Heroes, and more when he was probably new to the site. I wasn't immediately hooked on them, but I found it nice that he's capable of praising some shows that I couldn't. I don't exactly know when he watched me (January 14, 2019 is a close bet) considering him mentioning me in not-very critical ways on Twitter. As for me, I never really watched him simply because we don't necessarily interact often. But, I'd say that some of his reviews are alright to me at first...

BUT THEN CAME HIS STEVEN UNIVERSE SCORECARD!

His rant on this critically-acclaimed series kind of bugged me at first because it makes me look like I'm the only person who likes this show, but I got used to it. When I checked out the scorecard both visually and descriptively, both aspects alone made me motivated to make a scorecard on his scorecards. I would say that his rant on Steven Universe is something...for a nice, juicy review.

DESIGN: Alright, let's break down the most positive aspect of his reviews first. I like his scorecard style as they seem to be influenced by mine only to mix-up the formula quite a bit. The difference here is that he added layer styles to the ratings with each of them having their own unique texture (The Awful rating with a darker satin in the center and each rating with their different uses that makes them pop out with their vibrancy). They're pretty hard to interpret into this scorecard, which proves how good and effortful these layer styles can get. Also, I really like TTLF's take on the "Amazing" rating where that rating is two things; purple in the inside, rainbow as the strokes and glow, further proving the value of the rating. Nearly the same can be said towards the "Terrible" rating, although there might be too many flames strapped onto the rating that it can look at times hard to read. Not only that, but seeing both of these ratings get spammed throughout the majority of the scorecard can be repetitive, with the effect of the show or season being so good or so terrible becoming baffling, but they're mostly minor complaints of mine. The same can almost be described by the Top 10 and Bottom lists, although I prefer the Top 10 lists rather than the Bottom 10's mostly because of how the Top 10 lists are very colorful and different from the ratings where it has probably a gem-like texture. The list can commonly be inconsistent, though, such as the list not being as colorful as the other lists or that it's mostly just one color; blue or yellow, although it kind of makes sense with the latter since they indicate that the season or series is one of the best TTLF has seen. The Bottom 10, however, is a different story. When on a blank background, it flows solidly as it looks vibrant and fairly easy to read, but on one with a background, the amount of flames layering upon the list itself on top of the warm background makes it look more challenging and ugly to read.
And speaking of backgrounds, the background of the scorecard being a very familiar setting of the show is a great idea...if it didn't look that low-quality! I'd say the only situation where this worked out pretty well is in his Loud House scorecard where the background was blurred enough for the outer glow of the lists, pie chart, and logo to blend in with the background better-ly (the pie charts lacking glow have their own inconsistencies but whatever). That way, the enlarged background doesn't look that distracting with the compressed pixels. But then again, the size of his scorecards are a problem since if people are having trouble reading the lists (especially the Bottom 10 lists), they might have to zoom in and scroll across his scorecard a bunch of times just to read the Bottom 10 list or even his opinions on the episodes because everything else in comparison is way too big like his Steven Universe scorecard. I understand if he's trying to do this like have the frame of the scorecard match the size of the episode ratings section, but then again, that section doesn't have to be pretty tall or wide or y'know, the other aspects of his scorecard doesn't need to be too big to fit in frame vertically with the episode ratings section. Even whenever the season or show doesn't have a lot of episodes, the scorecard should still be really big, but since nothing much is incomprehensible here, they don't matter too much. But what I find absolutely unnecessary about his full scorecards are not the size of his scorecard, but the DISAPPROVAL or approval GANG! Aside from making his personality shine in the scorecard as well as to emphasize his love or hatred on the show, what is the point of them? Their purpose might be a big problem, but zooming in and seeing these characters trying to be quantified as much as possible just further pixelates them some more and seeing them be really blurry in actual size is pretty laughably bad. It's also obvious, especially on a darker background, to tell that they're cheaply and lazily inserted into the scorecard with some white outlines sticking out of these stock images.
  But if I were to give his full scorecards some praise, is that I like how the seasonal borders are different from each others that makes the scorecard look a bit colorful as well as efficient where people can indicate pretty easily which episode is in each season. But then again, several of them (including his seasonal scorecards) can lack rating counters as well as the best and worst episode symbols whenever the scorecard lacks either a Top 10 or a Bottom 10.

tl;dr version: It looks like he got some inspiration from mine, which ended up working very well as it shows that this is the way to be inspired while at the same thing not copy a person's scorecard style entirely. From the layer styles distinguishing each rating, more efficient takes on certain aspects, and a few great concepts, they look great except if it wasn't inconsistent, fairly ugly and pixelated, or that big.

My Feedback: I would say not to use that many flames on the Bottom 10 list so that it appears more readable and while the font used for the Bottom 10 is ugly, I can kind of see why it's meant to be that way. What I don't think should be intentional is your use of the Approval and Disapproval gangs. Take them out entirely as they're inferior compared to the higher-quality materials necessary to the scorecard. They're just there to make the scorecard look meme-tastic and that just makes the scorecard look a little unreliable. And also, the scorecards shouldn't be that wide where the size of each aspect of the scorecard is unbalanced. You should also consider the inconsistencies in mind but they're just minor complaints of mine compared to criticisms like the size of the scorecard and the Disapproval and Approval gangs.

SCRIPTING: I have nothing that noteworthy to say about his scorecards. It's fine at first, but when he becomes negative or too self-centered, it really spoils his reviews. But, I want to describe the good in his scripting first. His earlier reviews follow a format in which he would mostly talk about the reception of the show or season and give his thoughts on the seasons, starting with positive and then negative. A simple but effective format that has some solid transitions. What I tend to like about his early reviews is the way he'd call out episodes for tampering with the final rating of the series or season, adding to some of TTLF's comic behavior on this site. Nothing beyond hilarious but they do include "if it weren't for [episode], then this season would've been good or bad" and "wait, this season has a bad episode? Well that episode turns out to be [episode]". The way he carefully thinks of these statements to feel like something I haven't seen before it pretty effective, and what else to further prove that but with his solid choice of unfamiliar words. I mean, haven't you heard of words like camaraderie, nonsequiturs, or even some idioms or figurative language like "double-edged sword"? These makes his reviews a little more complex to understand but at the same time, it's still easy to follow along with the solid transitions, wording, etc. However, he does use lines and words a bunch of times in his reviews, which makes them pretty repetitive such as "laughing my ass" or "poignant". Not to say that they're repeated in the description, but rather once in each of several scorecards. Or, there's another case where it looks like he's having trouble describing several aspects of the show, which can be confusing like how he'd describe the anamorphic scope aspect of Samurai Jack as "lines that separate". Others include "dialogue exchanges", "departments", "character design philosophy", among others. To add some little spice, it makes it pretty interesting that he was dared or interested by other people like his friends to watch some shows like My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and Steven Universe. But then again, it's also pretty repetitive. The same can be said for the bolding at one point which I find to make his reviews a little more enjoyable to read due to them emphasizing that some of the statements he can bold are jokes or played out for surprises. But his bolding is perhaps more serious than the other aspects that are pretty mixed because in worse cases, it went out of hand. It really makes some of his reviews look like a mess (Hi, Steven Universe and Star vs. the Forces of Evil scorecards, or I'd like to call the latter "Steven Universe Full Scorecard's little sister").
  And this is the point where his scripting can sometimes can go downhill from there, with my least-favorite part of his commentary or anything like that; hypocrisy. Specifically with his later scorecards comes to show that a lot of statements he makes can contradict the last and even whatever's on the scorecard. Whenever he becomes negative on a show by calling that everything good about the show is gone or that nothing redeemable is about the series or season, there are still a couple of good episodes in there, so it really shows how cynical he can be when neglecting the good episodes of the show as nonexistent and rather wants to emphasize more on the negative side. Another rather hypocritical statement TTLF made is that he pointed out that his Steven Universe scorecard is his first full scorecard, despite Little Witch Academia being the first one made to be a full scorecard containing all the episodes from said anime. They're rather stupid statements, including that time whenever he comments on people's opinions on shows or seasons where he sometimes says that he doesn't get why people like or dislike them, despite it being obvious that he heard these opinions multiple times across the internet. Seriously TTLF, do you not understand why people criticize SpongeBob SquarePants Season 4 as the point of the show's decline or why they group Season 7 with 6 as the worst seasons? Because there are Animated Atrocities and similar rants detailing the problems with a handful of the season's episodes, with some of their reasoning being similar to each other. But it only gets worse from there; he straight up told the reader that if he or she thinks Season 4 is when SpongeBob declines even on rewatch and the reader still thinks so, then they have no choice but to shoot themselves. I can't even tell if he's joking or not because his earlier reviews don't have a lot of him kiddin' around (well in fact, it rarely looks like he's kidding in some scorecards) and more of him thinking that his opinions are superior than others. Tell me if that's a joke statement because the first time I read this, I became real shocked at how insulting TTLF can be here. But anyway, as I saw myself go on about that controversial remark, this section's beginning to look longer, which made me notice that the size of each section of his full scorecards can be unbalanced, but I can see why since the animation, history, final thoughts, and introductions aren't necessarily as important as the writing and characters. But still, the lack of paragraphs makes them look like a chore to read.

tl;dr version: His early reviews follow a rather simple but effective format, combined with smart lines and carefully thought-out words and text tooling. But when his scripting's bad, it's pretty insulting and stupid with many hypocritical statements and repetition.

My Feedback: I suggest to make your history section a little more varied so that it doesn't often become something like "someone made me watch this show", but that's not much of a big deal. What's really a big deal is to try to research the words you're trying to deliver next time as they can be confusing to apprehend. You should also think more about the statements you've just said because they might come out as a problem to some readers. And understanding how the structuring of your sections can be, the bolding's alright, but more paragraphs mean easier to locate which aspect you're describing.

REVIEW: When he's positive, his reviews are good. But when he's fiercely negative, they're mostly irredeemable. With shows he considers "great", the fact that he does have some criticisms or highlights of them makes him look really honest, especially whenever the scorecard looks colorful. For example, he really liked Season 3 of SpongeBob, but felt that SpongeBob "lost that sense of being a child in this season", which not only makes some reasonable opinions but also smartly point out a handful of episodes that don't share a similar rating to the show or season's final rating. Sure, he may brag about the show or season being completely perfect without pointing out a single flaw, but when it does, that's when his reviews can really work well. This would make the scorecard look colorful as it not only has a bunch of great episodes and a handful of flaws, but it can also be interesting whenever we see TTLF's view on the show change over time, whether if it's My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic going from bad to good or Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy plunging from great to terrible in just a span of one season. When a character seems flawed, it's astonishing that he can take characters and explain what makes their problems that look like cons at first actually good and even explain what makes them distinct from the others, like how he praised Ed from Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy for not just being an idiot but also for having a pure heart. It's popular, but the way he analyzed these characters and the show's writing makes them interesting. And speaking of popular, if some of his opinions are popular and that the description doesn't carry along that much elaboration, considering the opinion of his that a lot of people can relate to, that means we don't necessarily need to know what's up with his point (thanks to his SpongeBob SquarePants Season 2 review). But how about some of his unpopular opinions? With his early ones, they're still quite interesting and reasonable to read due to the explanation he makes detailing the common criticisms of the show or season, such as SpongeBob SquarePants Season 10 and 11's animation style being overly cartoony and zany actually hooking him further into the series due to it being distinct from not just the series but also any cartoon from the 2010's. That's actually a good point.
But then again, his positive reviews aren't all that great as several of his reviews, with some of the points he makes, just last elaboration such as why he thinks the show or season is really funny (which is actually the most common point he makes that is left unexplained), how are the stories great as well as the characters being immersive, what makes the backgrounds being "under-detailed", etc. But when he focused on full scorecards, that's when he tries his best to implement more elaboration in the review, allowing them to be stronger.
Now it's the part where his reviews become freakishly bad; rapidly criticizing a show or season. Honestly, his negative reviews aren't all that bad if they aren't over-exaggerated to making the final rating of the show or season feel too light. So far, the only situations where this worked out pretty well is in his Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy review panning Season 5 and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Season 1 critique, with both of them having some charm to them with TTLF's funny sarcasm to them like how he'd call Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy Season 5's plots amazing for having report cards and spelling bees. Unlike the SpongeBob Season 4 review where it made me confused if he was kidding around or not, wording like "1000000000th time" and "preparing for... school?" makes us know that he's being sarcastic. However, when his negative reviews are bad, they're usually really bad and frustrating to read. With some of the aspects he complains about, it rather makes his points pretty confusing due to them lacking elaboration where it makes me don't understand the argument. Of some of the more contemporary aspects seen in mainstream cartoons, he can complain about meta jokes but doesn't explain what's wrong with it besides it being lazy or criticize The Loud House's "unusually smooth" animation that's too much for a comic book-inspired animation style, but what's the deal with that? What kind of animation should comic-book influenced animation go for? They can also be pretty badly worded as well like that one time where he went on with certain actions of the characters that bothered him, ranging from The Amazing World of Gumball's "cliched" humor with the characters saying something and Steven Universe's "rushed" animation with them pulling a move and saying a line. I just don't get what he means by those. Maybe pull up an example so that I can understand these complaints better.
  And another thing, is it me or does it look like TTLF can treat his statements like facts? One of the most face-palming hypocritical statements from his is that he claims that Steven Universe has no plot or even an overarching plot as well as have no model sheets. What makes this one contradictory is that he literally brought up character arcs like Peridot's and Lapis', which technically counts as overarching because we see their conflict run over the course of several episodes. As for the "no plots" and "no model sheets" criticisms, it's quite clear that he didn't look them up to justify his arguments and those criticisms are way too much of a stretch to be considered reasonable nor by the sheer fact that he never justifies what makes shows like Steven Universe lack such story or model sheets. That includes The Amazing World of Gumball as well where he can call out episodes for having no plot, yes praise the show's writing because it knows how to make good writing DESPITE seeing episodes that have no plot or story. If the show is able to make good writing, then that means it's able to at least set up a plot as it should. As I said, he doesn't justify what makes these episodes lack stories or any kind of writing. If him not seeing the reality of these aspects is not enough, then him not acknowledging that some of the cons he points out are actually the point of the show, season, or episode should be good for you. Remember when he hated Gumball's "The Cringe" for being cringeworthy yet being cringeworthy is what the episode is trying to be all about? Or when he rambled about Steven's inconsistent characterization, yet it makes it look like he doesn't realize that the characters grow up over time due to the show being continuity-driven? He learns from his mistakes, you know. Pretty cynical of you, Dump, alongside the sheer fact that this makes it all look like you want to hate the show or season and not care about any positives like how you said that Star vs. the Forces of Evil's animation is nothing special, but then went to calling it bad because it never fascinated you. Not trying to defend the show or anything, but I think you missed out on the true potential of the show's animation. Or another thing is that you can over-exaggerate your criticisms and praises that the final rating of the series or season look worse or better than usual. This is the worst thing about TTLF's reviews because he'd often call shows like Steven Universe baby-ish for its "crybaby characters" although they're apparently aren't that all the time. And similar to that shoot yourself situation, he can even make comparisons of shows or episodes he hates to tragedies that are much more of a big deal rather than shows and episodes like how he'd say that watching someone die is the equivalent of Star vs.'s shipping. Seriously, entertainment is FAR from atrocious as something like the September 11 attacks where that event killed many people, and now you think that a show you hate with a passion has the capability to kill thousands if not millions of people from forced shipping, boredom, annoying characters, and so much more? Now you're just making up that you seem to have hated shows like Steven Universe so much that you consider it one of the worst shows ever made, but that show has a bad rating instead of a terrible one. Probably for pie chart's sake but the review will very likely get into a strong argument with the episode ratings. Alright, that's enough negative I must describe.

tl;dr version: When he's nice, his reviews are interesting, reasonable, and while much of them aren't that long, I can at least excuse that because the points TTLF brings out are fine and that it's probably before he became more elaborate with his reviews. His cynical side really needs a lot of cleaning up to do from being over-exaggerated, confusing, or just plain hypocritical.

My Feedback: Positive reviews are mostly fine, but negatives? I don't know if I could help you but I'll give my best shot at it; With some of the really unpopular statements like you calling out on Gumball's meta-humor, at least be more elaborate next time and maybe include an example so that I can comprehend that argument more. As I said with your scripting, think carefully with some of your arguments as they look you're presenting them as facts despite them being obviously false. The same can be said about you criticizing episodes as maybe your arguments are actually the point of the episode, but at least combat that with more criticisms detailing why it doesn't work regardless of its purpose. What I like about your positive reviews is that although you rated shows as fantastic, you still have some criticisms to them. You should do the same for your negative reviews except with highlights, but when I checked them at first, they're so brief. This'll at least make a balanced and honest review that feels trustworthy. And lastly, make more reasonable comparisons next time as comparing atrocities to bad TV shows is just too much of a stretch.

CONCLUSION: I'm surprised by the final rating of his overall critic side. I thought he'd be bad enough for me to make up my own disapproval gang (which was another reason why I wanted to review TTLF; to make fun of how many low-quality stock imaged characters he crams into much of his full scorecards) but since he fell into the middle like HugeTFPFan did but only slightly better, I guess there won't be a disapproval gang unless he keeps up the BAD rating streak. TTLF has the qualities that make up a good reviewer on this site while also going extremely overboard with them. His scorecard style has good potential with all the neat layer styles and all that stuff, he can carefully think of words readers may be unfamiliar with, and whip up some reasonable reviews containing interesting points popular or unpopular. When negative, he's worse than HugeTFPFan with his scorecards being way too big carried along by a distractingly pointless aspect, some visual inconsistencies, can even insult the reader, and be confusing with his wording as well as be rapidly hypocritical and harsh to the point of over-exaggerating his reviews to seclude positives. Do you know what he reminds me of? SpongeBob Season 5 where that season has some really good and really bad quantities to it and TTLF almost fits perfectly with the criteria of that season. He may have been meh, middling, or even weak, but altogether he makes up a FAIR critic due to his very good scorecard style and positive reviews. He technically isn't someone I would very often come back to for his reviews (because after all, the bad scorecards were awful), but TTLF is still a charming business empresario.

Description
IMPORTANT NOTE: Please do not harass the user for my thoughts on his reviews or his different opinions. It makes you look immature, mean, and someone you wouldn't hang out with. Thank you for reading this note.

YEP. You read the title. The HugeTFPFan scorecard is popular enough that I have the feeling to produce another scorecard. This time, it's the man who built Dump Towers, (or TheTrueLuigiFan. don't ask me how I found out his elongated name). Again, respect to his scorecard style and review structure, although it isn't exactly what I envisioned. The fonts are very similar but not quite a direct match, neither are the effects on the ratings, lists, and all that. But did this scorecard surprise you or something? Well, I'm gleeful to explain this main's mixed history in reviewing so on with the review!

HISTORY: Although me and TTLF aren't as close as friends like I was to HugeTFPFan, we still check each other reviews. Nothing too personal where a flame war was unleashed, but it's mostly normal. I think the first time I get to know TTLF is on Twitter while looking up my name, seeing if I had some sort of a cult following on that site. He was one of those people who were infrequently mentioning me and all the unpopular opinions I made. I would say that it's fun seeing them as they use my opinions for fun, whether if it's them making memes or just comparing people to me. So yeah, there's Twitter, but what about DeviantArt? Well, I noticed his scorecards on SpongeBob SquarePants, Steven Universe, OK K.O.! Let's Be Heroes, and more when he was probably new to the site. I wasn't immediately hooked on them, but I found it nice that he's capable of praising some shows that I couldn't. I don't exactly know when he watched me (January 14, 2019 is a close bet) considering him mentioning me in not-very critical ways on Twitter. As for me, I never really watched him simply because we don't necessarily interact often. But, I'd say that some of his reviews are alright to me at first...

BUT THEN CAME HIS STEVEN UNIVERSE SCORECARD!

His rant on this critically-acclaimed series kind of bugged me at first because it makes me look like I'm the only person who likes this show, but I got used to it. When I checked out the scorecard both visually and descriptively, both aspects alone made me motivated to make a scorecard on his scorecards. I would say that his rant on Steven Universe is something...for a nice, juicy review.

DESIGN: Alright, let's break down the most positive aspect of his reviews first. I like his scorecard style as they seem to be influenced by mine only to mix-up the formula quite a bit. The difference here is that he added layer styles to the ratings with each of them having their own unique texture (The Awful rating with a darker satin in the center and each rating with their different uses that makes them pop out with their vibrancy). They're pretty hard to interpret into this scorecard, which proves how good and effortful these layer styles can get. Also, I really like TTLF's take on the "Amazing" rating where that rating is two things; purple in the inside, rainbow as the strokes and glow, further proving the value of the rating. Nearly the same can be said towards the "Terrible" rating, although there might be too many flames strapped onto the rating that it can look at times hard to read. Not only that, but seeing both of these ratings get spammed throughout the majority of the scorecard can be repetitive, with the effect of the show or season being so good or so terrible becoming baffling, but they're mostly minor complaints of mine. The same can almost be described by the Top 10 and Bottom lists, although I prefer the Top 10 lists rather than the Bottom 10's mostly because of how the Top 10 lists are very colorful and different from the ratings where it has probably a gem-like texture. The list can commonly be inconsistent, though, such as the list not being as colorful as the other lists or that it's mostly just one color; blue or yellow, although it kind of makes sense with the latter since they indicate that the season or series is one of the best TTLF has seen. The Bottom 10, however, is a different story. When on a blank background, it flows solidly as it looks vibrant and fairly easy to read, but on one with a background, the amount of flames layering upon the list itself on top of the warm background makes it look more challenging and ugly to read.
And speaking of backgrounds, the background of the scorecard being a very familiar setting of the show is a great idea...if it didn't look that low-quality! I'd say the only situation where this worked out pretty well is in his Loud House scorecard where the background was blurred enough for the outer glow of the lists, pie chart, and logo to blend in with the background better-ly (the pie charts lacking glow have their own inconsistencies but whatever). That way, the enlarged background doesn't look that distracting with the compressed pixels. But then again, the size of his scorecards are a problem since if people are having trouble reading the lists (especially the Bottom 10 lists), they might have to zoom in and scroll across his scorecard a bunch of times just to read the Bottom 10 list or even his opinions on the episodes because everything else in comparison is way too big like his Steven Universe scorecard. I understand if he's trying to do this like have the frame of the scorecard match the size of the episode ratings section, but then again, that section doesn't have to be pretty tall or wide or y'know, the other aspects of his scorecard doesn't need to be too big to fit in frame vertically with the episode ratings section. Even whenever the season or show doesn't have a lot of episodes, the scorecard should still be really big, but since nothing much is incomprehensible here, they don't matter too much. But what I find absolutely unnecessary about his full scorecards are not the size of his scorecard, but the DISAPPROVAL or approval GANG! Aside from making his personality shine in the scorecard as well as to emphasize his love or hatred on the show, what is the point of them? Their purpose might be a big problem, but zooming in and seeing these characters trying to be quantified as much as possible just further pixelates them some more and seeing them be really blurry in actual size is pretty laughably bad. It's also obvious, especially on a darker background, to tell that they're cheaply and lazily inserted into the scorecard with some white outlines sticking out of these stock images.
  But if I were to give his full scorecards some praise, is that I like how the seasonal borders are different from each others that makes the scorecard look a bit colorful as well as efficient where people can indicate pretty easily which episode is in each season. But then again, several of them (including his seasonal scorecards) can lack rating counters as well as the best and worst episode symbols whenever the scorecard lacks either a Top 10 or a Bottom 10.

tl;dr version: It looks like he got some inspiration from mine, which ended up working very well as it shows that this is the way to be inspired while at the same thing not copy a person's scorecard style entirely. From the layer styles distinguishing each rating, more efficient takes on certain aspects, and a few great concepts, they look great except if it wasn't inconsistent, fairly ugly and pixelated, or that big.

My Feedback: I would say not to use that many flames on the Bottom 10 list so that it appears more readable and while the font used for the Bottom 10 is ugly, I can kind of see why it's meant to be that way. What I don't think should be intentional is your use of the Approval and Disapproval gangs. Take them out entirely as they're inferior compared to the higher-quality materials necessary to the scorecard. They're just there to make the scorecard look meme-tastic and that just makes the scorecard look a little unreliable. And also, the scorecards shouldn't be that wide where the size of each aspect of the scorecard is unbalanced. You should also consider the inconsistencies in mind but they're just minor complaints of mine compared to criticisms like the size of the scorecard and the Disapproval and Approval gangs.

SCRIPTING: I have nothing that noteworthy to say about his scorecards. It's fine at first, but when he becomes negative or too self-centered, it really spoils his reviews. But, I want to describe the good in his scripting first. His earlier reviews follow a format in which he would mostly talk about the reception of the show or season and give his thoughts on the seasons, starting with positive and then negative. A simple but effective format that has some solid transitions. What I tend to like about his early reviews is the way he'd call out episodes for tampering with the final rating of the series or season, adding to some of TTLF's comic behavior on this site. Nothing beyond hilarious but they do include "if it weren't for [episode], then this season would've been good or bad" and "wait, this season has a bad episode? Well that episode turns out to be [episode]". The way he carefully thinks of these statements to feel like something I haven't seen before it pretty effective, and what else to further prove that but with his solid choice of unfamiliar words. I mean, haven't you heard of words like camaraderie, nonsequiturs, or even some idioms or figurative language like "double-edged sword"? These makes his reviews a little more complex to understand but at the same time, it's still easy to follow along with the solid transitions, wording, etc. However, he does use lines and words a bunch of times in his reviews, which makes them pretty repetitive such as "laughing my ass" or "poignant". Not to say that they're repeated in the description, but rather once in each of several scorecards. Or, there's another case where it looks like he's having trouble describing several aspects of the show, which can be confusing like how he'd describe the anamorphic scope aspect of Samurai Jack as "lines that separate". Others include "dialogue exchanges", "departments", "character design philosophy", among others. To add some little spice, it makes it pretty interesting that he was dared or interested by other people like his friends to watch some shows like My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and Steven Universe. But then again, it's also pretty repetitive. The same can be said for the bolding at one point which I find to make his reviews a little more enjoyable to read due to them emphasizing that some of the statements he can bold are jokes or played out for surprises. But his bolding is perhaps more serious than the other aspects that are pretty mixed because in worse cases, it went out of hand. It really makes some of his reviews look like a mess (Hi, Steven Universe and Star vs. the Forces of Evil scorecards, or I'd like to call the latter "Steven Universe Full Scorecard's little sister").
  And this is the point where his scripting can sometimes can go downhill from there, with my least-favorite part of his commentary or anything like that; hypocrisy. Specifically with his later scorecards comes to show that a lot of statements he makes can contradict the last and even whatever's on the scorecard. Whenever he becomes negative on a show by calling that everything good about the show is gone or that nothing redeemable is about the series or season, there are still a couple of good episodes in there, so it really shows how cynical he can be when neglecting the good episodes of the show as nonexistent and rather wants to emphasize more on the negative side. Another rather hypocritical statement TTLF made is that he pointed out that his Steven Universe scorecard is his first full scorecard, despite Little Witch Academia being the first one made to be a full scorecard containing all the episodes from said anime. They're rather stupid statements, including that time whenever he comments on people's opinions on shows or seasons where he sometimes says that he doesn't get why people like or dislike them, despite it being obvious that he heard these opinions multiple times across the internet. Seriously TTLF, do you not understand why people criticize SpongeBob SquarePants Season 4 as the point of the show's decline or why they group Season 7 with 6 as the worst seasons? Because there are Animated Atrocities and similar rants detailing the problems with a handful of the season's episodes, with some of their reasoning being similar to each other. But it only gets worse from there; he straight up told the reader that if he or she thinks Season 4 is when SpongeBob declines even on rewatch and the reader still thinks so, then they have no choice but to shoot themselves. I can't even tell if he's joking or not because his earlier reviews don't have a lot of him kiddin' around (well in fact, it rarely looks like he's kidding in some scorecards) and more of him thinking that his opinions are superior than others. Tell me if that's a joke statement because the first time I read this, I became real shocked at how insulting TTLF can be here. But anyway, as I saw myself go on about that controversial remark, this section's beginning to look longer, which made me notice that the size of each section of his full scorecards can be unbalanced, but I can see why since the animation, history, final thoughts, and introductions aren't necessarily as important as the writing and characters. But still, the lack of paragraphs makes them look like a chore to read.

tl;dr version: His early reviews follow a rather simple but effective format, combined with smart lines and carefully thought-out words and text tooling. But when his scripting's bad, it's pretty insulting and stupid with many hypocritical statements and repetition.

My Feedback: I suggest to make your history section a little more varied so that it doesn't often become something like "someone made me watch this show", but that's not much of a big deal. What's really a big deal is to try to research the words you're trying to deliver next time as they can be confusing to apprehend. You should also think more about the statements you've just said because they might come out as a problem to some readers. And understanding how the structuring of your sections can be, the bolding's alright, but more paragraphs mean easier to locate which aspect you're describing.

REVIEW: When he's positive, his reviews are good. But when he's fiercely negative, they're mostly irredeemable. With shows he considers "great", the fact that he does have some criticisms or highlights of them makes him look really honest, especially whenever the scorecard looks colorful. For example, he really liked Season 3 of SpongeBob, but felt that SpongeBob "lost that sense of being a child in this season", which not only makes some reasonable opinions but also smartly point out a handful of episodes that don't share a similar rating to the show or season's final rating. Sure, he may brag about the show or season being completely perfect without pointing out a single flaw, but when it does, that's when his reviews can really work well. This would make the scorecard look colorful as it not only has a bunch of great episodes and a handful of flaws, but it can also be interesting whenever we see TTLF's view on the show change over time, whether if it's My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic going from bad to good or Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy plunging from great to terrible in just a span of one season. When a character seems flawed, it's astonishing that he can take characters and explain what makes their problems that look like cons at first actually good and even explain what makes them distinct from the others, like how he praised Ed from Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy for not just being an idiot but also for having a pure heart. It's popular, but the way he analyzed these characters and the show's writing makes them interesting. And speaking of popular, if some of his opinions are popular and that the description doesn't carry along that much elaboration, considering the opinion of his that a lot of people can relate to, that means we don't necessarily need to know what's up with his point (thanks to his SpongeBob SquarePants Season 2 review). But how about some of his unpopular opinions? With his early ones, they're still quite interesting and reasonable to read due to the explanation he makes detailing the common criticisms of the show or season, such as SpongeBob SquarePants Season 10 and 11's animation style being overly cartoony and zany actually hooking him further into the series due to it being distinct from not just the series but also any cartoon from the 2010's. That's actually a good point.
But then again, his positive reviews aren't all that great as several of his reviews, with some of the points he makes, just last elaboration such as why he thinks the show or season is really funny (which is actually the most common point he makes that is left unexplained), how are the stories great as well as the characters being immersive, what makes the backgrounds being "under-detailed", etc. But when he focused on full scorecards, that's when he tries his best to implement more elaboration in the review, allowing them to be stronger.
Now it's the part where his reviews become freakishly bad; rapidly criticizing a show or season. Honestly, his negative reviews aren't all that bad if they aren't over-exaggerated to making the final rating of the show or season feel too light. So far, the only situations where this worked out pretty well is in his Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy review panning Season 5 and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Season 1 critique, with both of them having some charm to them with TTLF's funny sarcasm to them like how he'd call Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy Season 5's plots amazing for having report cards and spelling bees. Unlike the SpongeBob Season 4 review where it made me confused if he was kidding around or not, wording like "1000000000th time" and "preparing for... school?" makes us know that he's being sarcastic. However, when his negative reviews are bad, they're usually really bad and frustrating to read. With some of the aspects he complains about, it rather makes his points pretty confusing due to them lacking elaboration where it makes me don't understand the argument. Of some of the more contemporary aspects seen in mainstream cartoons, he can complain about meta jokes but doesn't explain what's wrong with it besides it being lazy or criticize The Loud House's "unusually smooth" animation that's too much for a comic book-inspired animation style, but what's the deal with that? What kind of animation should comic-book influenced animation go for? They can also be pretty badly worded as well like that one time where he went on with certain actions of the characters that bothered him, ranging from The Amazing World of Gumball's "cliched" humor with the characters saying something and Steven Universe's "rushed" animation with them pulling a move and saying a line. I just don't get what he means by those. Maybe pull up an example so that I can understand these complaints better.
  And another thing, is it me or does it look like TTLF can treat his statements like facts? One of the most face-palming hypocritical statements from his is that he claims that Steven Universe has no plot or even an overarching plot as well as have no model sheets. What makes this one contradictory is that he literally brought up character arcs like Peridot's and Lapis', which technically counts as overarching because we see their conflict run over the course of several episodes. As for the "no plots" and "no model sheets" criticisms, it's quite clear that he didn't look them up to justify his arguments and those criticisms are way too much of a stretch to be considered reasonable nor by the sheer fact that he never justifies what makes shows like Steven Universe lack such story or model sheets. That includes The Amazing World of Gumball as well where he can call out episodes for having no plot, yes praise the show's writing because it knows how to make good writing DESPITE seeing episodes that have no plot or story. If the show is able to make good writing, then that means it's able to at least set up a plot as it should. As I said, he doesn't justify what makes these episodes lack stories or any kind of writing. If him not seeing the reality of these aspects is not enough, then him not acknowledging that some of the cons he points out are actually the point of the show, season, or episode should be good for you. Remember when he hated Gumball's "The Cringe" for being cringeworthy yet being cringeworthy is what the episode is trying to be all about? Or when he rambled about Steven's inconsistent characterization, yet it makes it look like he doesn't realize that the characters grow up over time due to the show being continuity-driven? He learns from his mistakes, you know. Pretty cynical of you, Dump, alongside the sheer fact that this makes it all look like you want to hate the show or season and not care about any positives like how you said that Star vs. the Forces of Evil's animation is nothing special, but then went to calling it bad because it never fascinated you. Not trying to defend the show or anything, but I think you missed out on the true potential of the show's animation. Or another thing is that you can over-exaggerate your criticisms and praises that the final rating of the series or season look worse or better than usual. This is the worst thing about TTLF's reviews because he'd often call shows like Steven Universe baby-ish for its "crybaby characters" although they're apparently aren't that all the time. And similar to that shoot yourself situation, he can even make comparisons of shows or episodes he hates to tragedies that are much more of a big deal rather than shows and episodes like how he'd say that watching someone die is the equivalent of Star vs.'s shipping. Seriously, entertainment is FAR from atrocious as something like the September 11 attacks where that event killed many people, and now you think that a show you hate with a passion has the capability to kill thousands if not millions of people from forced shipping, boredom, annoying characters, and so much more? Now you're just making up that you seem to have hated shows like Steven Universe so much that you consider it one of the worst shows ever made, but that show has a bad rating instead of a terrible one. Probably for pie chart's sake but the review will very likely get into a strong argument with the episode ratings. Alright, that's enough negative I must describe.

tl;dr version: When he's nice, his reviews are interesting, reasonable, and while much of them aren't that long, I can at least excuse that because the points TTLF brings out are fine and that it's probably before he became more elaborate with his reviews. His cynical side really needs a lot of cleaning up to do from being over-exaggerated, confusing, or just plain hypocritical.

My Feedback: Positive reviews are mostly fine, but negatives? I don't know if I could help you but I'll give my best shot at it; With some of the really unpopular statements like you calling out on Gumball's meta-humor, at least be more elaborate next time and maybe include an example so that I can comprehend that argument more. As I said with your scripting, think carefully with some of your arguments as they look you're presenting them as facts despite them being obviously false. The same can be said about you criticizing episodes as maybe your arguments are actually the point of the episode, but at least combat that with more criticisms detailing why it doesn't work regardless of its purpose. What I like about your positive reviews is that although you rated shows as fantastic, you still have some criticisms to them. You should do the same for your negative reviews except with highlights, but when I checked them at first, they're so brief. This'll at least make a balanced and honest review that feels trustworthy. And lastly, make more reasonable comparisons next time as comparing atrocities to bad TV shows is just too much of a stretch.

CONCLUSION: I'm surprised by the final rating of his overall critic side. I thought he'd be bad enough for me to make up my own disapproval gang (which was another reason why I wanted to review TTLF; to make fun of how many low-quality stock imaged characters he crams into much of his full scorecards) but since he fell into the middle like HugeTFPFan did but only slightly better, I guess there won't be a disapproval gang unless he keeps up the BAD rating streak. TTLF has the qualities that make up a good reviewer on this site while also going extremely overboard with them. His scorecard style has good potential with all the neat layer styles and all that stuff, he can carefully think of words readers may be unfamiliar with, and whip up some reasonable reviews containing interesting points popular or unpopular. When negative, he's worse than HugeTFPFan with his scorecards being way too big carried along by a distractingly pointless aspect, some visual inconsistencies, can even insult the reader, and be confusing with his wording as well as be rapidly hypocritical and harsh to the point of over-exaggerating his reviews to seclude positives. Do you know what he reminds me of? SpongeBob Season 5 where that season has some really good and really bad quantities to it and TTLF almost fits perfectly with the criteria of that season. He may have been meh, middling, or even weak, but altogether he makes up a FAIR critic due to his very good scorecard style and positive reviews. He technically isn't someone I would very often come back to for his reviews (because after all, the bad scorecards were awful), but TTLF is still a charming business empresario.