Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'overrated'.
Found 2 results
It is once again "Late Night Thread" time, and right now... well, uh, this is just gonna be another one of those things where I just ramble about something. Hopefully in a coherent manner. I don't really make threads like this that often anymore and I felt like getting something off my chest, so uh, yeah, here I go: So, people who know me best know that I watch cartoons, and I have in fact been watching them since I was young. Hell, I made a status not too long ago about watching Baby Looney Tunes. I am nineteen freaking years old. And yet, I saw it when I was in elementary school, well above the age where you're actually "allowed" to watch it and continue to willfully watch re-runs of it today. And I'm proud of that. That being said, I also dabble in today's ever-growing pool of modern cartoons, and just like most media consumed by people my age, it tends to be bashed a lot just based on principle ... I don't care about this either, but still take off the rose-tinted glasses people, yeesh. The point I am trying to make is that while I am a fan of currently running cartoons like Adventure Time and Steven Universe, there is a mentality that I feel is present in those who legitimately enjoy these shows as well as those people I mentioned who someone "converted", a mentality that I highly disagree with. Basically, it's that the reason these shows are actually considered good is because they have "plot", and by that I mean they all have overarching story arcs with things like callbacks to previous events/actions, backstories, character development based off those two things, and basically any type of world-building that leads fans to make up a bunch of fan theories. Kinda of like anime. Now, is this a bad thing? Nope. Not at all. In fact, it's great that this type of media that is so wrongfully accused of being "just for kids" has an element to it that allows it to draw in fans of older and maybe even beyond... but that's not to say it's the only redeemable quality to these shows, right? Of course not. Let me give you an example. I've made it clear that I'm a fan of The Amazing World Of Gumball. It's a episodic comedy centering around a blue cat, his family, and the denizens of his hometown Elmore that consists mostly of slice-of-life happenings and shenanigans. Why do I like it, you ask? Even though it sounds like something not unlike the shows that I described earlier? My reasons are simple: 1) It's funny, both in terms of general silly humor and even dark comedy; 2) it's entertaining if not funny due to having good animation and fairly decent action/drama scenes when it wants to; 3) It has an unique art style that blends different forms of animation into one setting that fits very well; 3) the characters are good despite not having direct arcs for themselves; 4) it has good enough messages that you can take from it despite being a "silly" cartoon; 5) it playfully mocks animation tropes, writing tropes, and other subject matter; 6) it's gets more clever with each new episode; 7) even when it's mean-spirited, it can still be funny. I could go on but I'll stop right there. You get the point. None of these reasons are (mostly) similar to why I love shows like Adventure Time or Steven Universe. They are more in-line with other shows I like such as Regular Show and Sonic Boom. But that's okay. It's okay not to have a complex plot like most anime have. It's okay not to have "deep" characterization carried over a span of story arcs. It's okay that if doesn't want to make you write up a theory about if the main character is really a duck from the Planet Jupiter. It's all okay. In Gumball, there is no bigger meaning or bigger plot, but there are a few nods to previous episodes and storylines picked up from previous episodes. The characters aren't given personal arcs or grow along with the story of lack-there0of, but they able to learn and adapt if given the time to do so, and that includes Gumball himself. There isn't a deep lore made up of backstories of previous events or characters with time spent on building the world that the show takes place in for the same purposes, but as the title says, it certainly is an "amazing world", as in a world that clearly shows that it is a world filled with characters and places and interesting things, and all of that done without exposition dumps. The bottom line: cartoons, or anything in general really, are good because it is what it wants to be and what that is has quality. Cartoons of the past, the cartoons my generation and I love such as Courage The Cowardly Dog, Powerpuff Girls, Samurai Jack, Spongebob (the good seasons), Hey Arnold!, Rocko's Modern Life, and even going back further to stuff like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Scooby Doo, and the Looney Tunes, aren't all held in high regard because they all serve a deeper purpose other than to just entertain somebody for eleven minutes. Some did have bigger intentions, but not all, and even then, they had qualities beside that which helped serve to make them as popular and well-regarded as they are now. They were simply all good cartoons. And it's possible to find that same level of quality in today's cartoons. It doesn't even have to do with the fact that they are made in today's age because like I said earlier, and I mean it this time: take off the rose-colored glasses. Just because something is new and wasn't part of your childhood doesn't make it automatically horrible. In fact, if you look back and really think about it, not everything about your childhood is awesome. You might even realize that it's as bad or even worse than the stuff you have today. Let me remind you that there is crap in every era of time. The 90s had it, the 80s had it, the 70s definitely had it, and so on. For every good cartoon comes a bad one. Plain and simple. This even applies to today, but honestly, it's very easy to find more examples of good than bad, and if you look back on those previous eras, you might agree with me. I know I sort of got off topic and turn this into a rant about nostalgia but my original point still stands.