Actually frick it, just watched it and here’s what I think. >thesis is that the “golden age” of kids’ shows took more risks and were more mature than “current” ones >introduction is too brief and stock; he never talks about 80s action shows being a transition from education to regular entertainment, nor does he bring up Mighty Mouse or Ren and Stimpy’s breakthroughs in that regard >examples of bad “current” cartoons are shows that haven’t been on the air for almost a decade >uses the 90s as a pinnacle of shows being risky when they were just as guilty of following the leader regardless of quality (Cow and Chicken and Mega Babies for example) >uses Avatar and Clone Wars as examples of using darker themes such as genocide and war, ignoring the Owl House and the newer TMNTs using this >says that streaming is in its own golden age, but doesn’t bring up any of the acclaimed, “riskier” kids shows like Hilda, Trollhunters or Dark Crystal
It’s your typical rant video where the creator has surface-level knowledge of the subject at hand. It’s not the worst thing ever, but it doesn’t have anything new to offer.
/co/ntroversial take: I think the reason new kids shows are bad is because they ARE risky. Name the last "hit kids cartoon" that didn't just devolve into identity politics and relationship drama.
>New kids shows suck >Shows are relatively older now
I ain't watching this shit. I just know every opinion is going to be the same opinion every cartoon obsessed autists has. Especially going of this
So… we’re just gonna pretend that poorly made shows weren’t made during the past 2 decades?
Seriously, I grew up in the 2000s, and I can say that the vast majority of the shit I watched was trash tier. In fact, I can on only think of a few that I thought were genuinely good.
- Samurai Jack
- Avatar
- Clone Wars
- Fairly Oddparents
- Fosters Home
- Invader Zim
- Kids Next Door
- Kimpossible
- Teenage Robot
- Jimmy Neutron
Now granted, these are only the ones that I could think of, but there was A LOT of shit in comparison, and I'm only talking about the 2000s. You basically cherry picked the best of 2 decades worth of animation, and then compared that to the entirety of only 1 decade of animation. That does nothing but weaken your argument, especially if you're addressing animation fans.
Not only that, but your points lack any cohesion, and a lot of them are downright wrong.
I really don't get your point about Kirby buckets. It's essentially the "Simpsons did it" argument, but with even less validity. You basically took the entire premise of a show and said "Well, you can't do that because Spongebob did a single episode about this idea". That's in spite of the fact that Spongebob wasn't the first show to explore the concept of anthropomorphic drawings, let alone the first to use meta humor.
Also, remember when you said Clone Wars took risks? Well, it just so happens that the Clone Wars was revived in 2020, and it was just as violent as it ever was. Not only that, but it now has a sister series, Bad Batch, which is also really violent. Despite the new series coming out in 2020, and being produced under a squeaky clean company like Disney, it still retained that violent tone.
You're also ignoring the risks that kids shows take now which were inconceivable during the "golden era". LGBTQ representation is a perfect example. Shows like the Steven Universe, Adventure Time, and The Owl House all have some semblance of LGBTQ representation, and none of that representation can be seen in "the golden age" of animation, at least not explicitly.
Seriously, if you're gonna tackle a topic like this, you'll need to be a lot more comprehensive. A 7 minute video simply cannot accommodate 3 decades worth of animation. That's like trying to sum up Abraham Lincoln's entire presidency within the span of 10 seconds. It just can't be done.
Nah
No, and I'm not going to click on your youtube channel either. I hope you frick a bus full of Black folk and die from aids.
I usually read point in Cinemaphile that I later see being talked about in videos.
What shows did he inevitably mention as exceptions?
2:10
Gravity Falls
Korra
Gumball
>Korra
>no Hilda
Not interested
Actually frick it, just watched it and here’s what I think.
>thesis is that the “golden age” of kids’ shows took more risks and were more mature than “current” ones
>introduction is too brief and stock; he never talks about 80s action shows being a transition from education to regular entertainment, nor does he bring up Mighty Mouse or Ren and Stimpy’s breakthroughs in that regard
>examples of bad “current” cartoons are shows that haven’t been on the air for almost a decade
>uses the 90s as a pinnacle of shows being risky when they were just as guilty of following the leader regardless of quality (Cow and Chicken and Mega Babies for example)
>uses Avatar and Clone Wars as examples of using darker themes such as genocide and war, ignoring the Owl House and the newer TMNTs using this
>says that streaming is in its own golden age, but doesn’t bring up any of the acclaimed, “riskier” kids shows like Hilda, Trollhunters or Dark Crystal
It’s your typical rant video where the creator has surface-level knowledge of the subject at hand. It’s not the worst thing ever, but it doesn’t have anything new to offer.
/co/ntroversial take: I think the reason new kids shows are bad is because they ARE risky. Name the last "hit kids cartoon" that didn't just devolve into identity politics and relationship drama.
Define “relationship drama” because that’s incredibly vague
The "will they won't they?" kinda stuff. Star vs. is a good example.
In that case, Bluey, Hilda and Amphibia come to mind
The streaming one didn't age well considered all the cartoons from streaming media are getting canned recently mainly netflix and hbomax
>New kids shows suck
>Shows are relatively older now
I ain't watching this shit. I just know every opinion is going to be the same opinion every cartoon obsessed autists has. Especially going of this
So… we’re just gonna pretend that poorly made shows weren’t made during the past 2 decades?
Seriously, I grew up in the 2000s, and I can say that the vast majority of the shit I watched was trash tier. In fact, I can on only think of a few that I thought were genuinely good.
- Samurai Jack
- Avatar
- Clone Wars
- Fairly Oddparents
- Fosters Home
- Invader Zim
- Kids Next Door
- Kimpossible
- Teenage Robot
- Jimmy Neutron
Now granted, these are only the ones that I could think of, but there was A LOT of shit in comparison, and I'm only talking about the 2000s. You basically cherry picked the best of 2 decades worth of animation, and then compared that to the entirety of only 1 decade of animation. That does nothing but weaken your argument, especially if you're addressing animation fans.
1/2
You guys shilling your video essays should at least post the major bullet points along with it. I'm not giving that shit views. Put some effort in.
2/2
Not only that, but your points lack any cohesion, and a lot of them are downright wrong.
I really don't get your point about Kirby buckets. It's essentially the "Simpsons did it" argument, but with even less validity. You basically took the entire premise of a show and said "Well, you can't do that because Spongebob did a single episode about this idea". That's in spite of the fact that Spongebob wasn't the first show to explore the concept of anthropomorphic drawings, let alone the first to use meta humor.
Also, remember when you said Clone Wars took risks? Well, it just so happens that the Clone Wars was revived in 2020, and it was just as violent as it ever was. Not only that, but it now has a sister series, Bad Batch, which is also really violent. Despite the new series coming out in 2020, and being produced under a squeaky clean company like Disney, it still retained that violent tone.
You're also ignoring the risks that kids shows take now which were inconceivable during the "golden era". LGBTQ representation is a perfect example. Shows like the Steven Universe, Adventure Time, and The Owl House all have some semblance of LGBTQ representation, and none of that representation can be seen in "the golden age" of animation, at least not explicitly.
Seriously, if you're gonna tackle a topic like this, you'll need to be a lot more comprehensive. A 7 minute video simply cannot accommodate 3 decades worth of animation. That's like trying to sum up Abraham Lincoln's entire presidency within the span of 10 seconds. It just can't be done.
19
Yes
not watching your video homosexual
>video made a week ago
>exclusively talks about "new" shows that are all 9 or more years old
Is this a reupload or something?
He mentions Cocomelon so no
why does the thumbnail look fricking outdated?
Because he hasn't watched a kids show since 2014
Your childhood is over, you’ll never get any younger, and you’re closer to death today than you’ve ever been before.
You see, I turn on the children's channel and they only have children's stuff, when I was a kid cartoons were better for some reason
>Shows of today suck
>biggest example he can give is Fanboy and Chumchum, a show from 2009