Which infuriates you more?

Which infuriates you more?

>LOL the animators must have been on drugs when they made this

Or

>Who cares, it's just a kids show.

Neither of those things bothers me.
I was bothered by Dan getting raped by a bear, though.

None,because I don't have autism

>the old cartoon was better

>Who cares it's just a kids show.

being made for kids is no excuse no shitty quality, you're just lazy at best and downright disrespectful towards your audience at worst. If you make a cartoon you first damn good and well in entertains YOU first and then see if it entertains whatever demographic you're hoping to entertain as well.

A show staff/runner/director/whoever should NEVER say "it's just for kids" if they ever want to e taken seriously in the business, it shows a lack of care and passion. Which I think ultimately hurts the business.

At least the other one can be said if the show is bizarre enough that could entertaining to some degree.

The first one is stupid in most contexts and shows nothing but narrow-mindedness.The second one can actually make sense when it's said about something like Spongebob to somebody like Mr Enter nitpicking cartoon physics.

Kids love retarded shit, but they also tend to move on to the next thing very quickly.
Annoying Orange and Fred were wildly popular for a while.
I'm surprised they haven't made a Minecraft cartoon yet.

They are making a Minecraft movie.

Except that's almost always the case when it comes to reboots. Very rarely do people in this industry make a reboot that actually surpasses the original show.

this

there are a lot of stupid things to say and do but using your audience as an excuse for making a shitty product is just unacceptable

>waaah the NEW cartoon uses pop culture references!
>hahaha the OLD cartoon made pop culture references!

Memes aren't pop culture references. They're the equivalent of an old man trying to use hip slang. It gets outdated fast and once it reaches that level of mainstream, it becomes fucking awful.

Someone parodying Let It Go? That's fine. "No Me Gusta"? Get me the fuck out.

Neither bothers me that much but in certain context
>Who cares, it's just a kids show
It'd like "here's something blatantly harmful for children to see or learn but it's okay because I've dropped all standards for anything to be consumed by children" then they usually follow it up by strawmanning and saying you advocate for censorship.

>>hahaha the OLD cartoon made pop culture references!
Not usually no.
>>waaah the NEW cartoon uses pop culture references!
Besides how dated these get very fast, don't pretend like that's the main complaint.

>animator makes pretty good cartoon and cuts several interviews where he insists that he will not fall into the same pitfalls as other cartoons and make it something amazing
>fucks up
>ITS JUST A CARTOON TURN YOUR BRAIN OFF BRO

>Someone actually cares enough to ask a question like this.
Jesus Christ, autism is real.

Hello, Alexander.

>Who cares, it's just a kids show

Some leaps in logic are ok for the minor logic jumps, but I HATE that argument when something goes entirely off the rails. People defend Bayformers or the MCU the exact same way with "lol dude turn your brain off." I can only excuse it when the film/show made a sizeable effort to maintain quality.

Even Mission fucking Hill was able to keep a consistent town layout, why couldn't Gravity Falls?

I'd honestly rather creators be fucking real and just go, "Sometimes we have an idea for an episode that requires the characters to go into a coffee shop but we never had a coffee shop in the original layout, so we had to add one afterwards. But we can't update all our reference material and re-used layout shots with that coffee shop because it would eat up the budget every time we did that, so it just ceases to exist after the episode it's needed in."

I don't care if they pull back the curtain and reveal the tricks, it's better than being condescending. And people might actually gain some insight on production pipeline that way.

"It's Just a Kid's Show" is inherently worse since that shouldn't determine the quality of something, but let's talk about "were they on drugs or something" for a second.

Oh many it rustles my jimmies. It's funny the first couple of times you see it but then you realize that actual creativity comes in a lot of forms, and the people who post those drug comments are so narrow minded that they can't accept anything weird as anything more than mad ramblings from druggies.

The first is usually retarded but there a few cartoons where you do have to wonder.
The second is inexcusable

I think the worst it's ever been for him was when he hyped up that someone in Gravity Falls would die in the finale so everyone assumed it would be a townsperson or one of the Pines. And then when it ended up being Bill's death, people went, "Hey, I thought someone in Gravity Falls was gonna die?", he responded with people need to find better ways to use their time than fantasizing about one of the Pines twins dying in a cartoon.

He would have been able to have his cake and eat it too if Stan didn't get his memories back instantly. He could have then at least said it was a metaphorical death.

>pointing out that a cartoon was intended for the consumption of people 10-20 years younger than the population of Sup Forums is inexcusable

Im worried that kids will grow up learning that the shit produced nowadays is what good quality and good humour is. Just look at that Ninjago shit, jesus christ the thought that money was used on that crap makes me vomit

I don't want to settle for mediocrity
And I don't want for future generations to settle for it either

There's a difference between humor catering to a certain demographic and straight up bad character motivations or rushed arcs in a series that is trying to be somewhat serious during personal moments.

Children's literature and a lot animated movies are capable of simply being entertaining stories to all ages, even in spite of their targeted demographic. Unless you're making edutainment, there is no downside to trying to make your animated product appeal to families. You'll only increase profits by doing that rather than trying to squeeze every quick dime you can from dumb kids which results in shit like Nut Job or Emoji Movie that end up being failures.

CLASSIC manlet. Look at him go

>Implying this actually matters
What do you consider quality stuff, anons?

He's so powerful that even his beard has its own Twitter account!

Not either of those but:

>Courage the Cowardly Dog
>Avatar
>B:TAS, S:TAS, Justice League Cartoon
>Avengers Earth's Mightiest Heroes
>Powerpuff Girls
>Freakazoid
>Animaniacs
>Hey Arnold
>Misadventures of Flapjack

Are just a handful of cartoons that never talked down to their audience. Some of them were even mature for their audience and others properly knew how to use the "rule of funny" and made it obvious they were doing so, not being lazy and going, "Who cares, it's a cartoon".

I'd like to include others like Steven Universe or Adventure Time on the list, but they have way too many cooks in the kitchen for me to feel like they 100% deserve it. Especially considering many people on the SU crew have dragged down everything Sugar is trying to do by actually saying shit like, "It's a kids cartoon", even Ian JQ, her fucking boyfriend.