Mac's Mom presumably didn't know about Foster's

>Mac's Mom presumably didn't know about Foster's
>told Mac to get rid of Bloo anyway
What exactly did she expect Mac to do? Just kick him out of the house? Why didn't she take care of this herself?

She’d probably use the single Mom status as an excuse.

She wanted Mac to grow up and killing his imaginary friend was part of that.

Where was his dad?

She expected him to take Bloo out back and put him down like old yeller

So Mac was supposed to outright kill Bloo? The show constantly drives the point that Imaginary Friends are basically one step up above pets (even though they're intelligent, have a will and can work and make money just like any human could) but when you're done with them you're just supposed to kill them? That's fucked up.

THIS show is one of the best example of just shut up and watch it. Dont look for "lore" or deeper meanings or whatever the fuck

His problem had no problem eating one.

But Coco is literally DEEPEST LORE.

yeah. I feel like most cartoons are like that, honestly. some of the best, too. look at Rocko's Modern Life for example. none of that shit made a lick of sense but it was still entertaining.

imagine if Sup Forums existed during the original airing of Lonny Toons.

its a cartoon don't think about it too much.

yeah, me no like deep cartoons, it hurt brain and not make me laugh

>Don't look for lore or deeper meanings
But user, why are the curtains blue?

She probably thought of imaginary friends like animals
Living, but not human, so ultimately less important than the mouths you have to feed
Mac literally created him so it’d be weird for her to personally get rid of bloo, so it was a problem mac had to solve on his own

I’m sure macs mom thought he’d leave him in a cardbox box labeled “free to a good home”, like you do with other animals

People ITT are over thinking this

but foster's is pretty much unwatchable

A lot of this shows implications were monsterously fucked up
Imaginary friends don't actually have rights of any kind because they aren't "real", and treating them like they are is considered childish.

Like that episode where Bloo was "adopted" by that deodorant pushing guy, who didn't feed him and kept him locked in a cage all the time. The guy ended up getting arrested, not for imprisoning and abusing a sapient being, but for false advertising because his deodorant actually made people smell worse.

There are certainly shows where that is the case. There is no time spent on how, where or why Wile E Coyote gets the funds for his traps, so asking about if he has a job, if he's the trust fund kid of some billionaire - that's missing the point . The point of the show is his pursuit of the roadrunner.

There is still logic to the show, though, and that logic would break of we had an episode where Wile E suddenly stopped chasing the roadrunner. The entire show has been built around that, so if we had an episode where roadrunner was finally caught in one of Wile's traps and Wile just let him go and went to watch TV, that would be worth questioning.

I only watched a handful of Foster's home for imaginary friends but from what I saw, the entire premise is about the well being of these creatures that are created and forgotten/left behind/etc. The very TITLE invites you to think about the world in this way. I believe a lot of the conflicts in this show are centered around the imaginary friend and the child that created it no longer having an interest in them. The imaginary friend's fate is something you are meant to get invested in.

I don't know the episode OP is talking about either, but it does sound like something that would've made the episode richer if they had addressed it.

No one needs to see Wile E get a christmas bonus in order to buy an extra big rocket, but having an episode that shows that parents actively discourage kids from keeping their imaginary friends could color why so many of them are abandoned. An episode where it explains that adults don't fully understand what it means to leave behind an imaginary friend. Or, it could just be specific to Mac, and his mother wasn't paying attention to Mac's needs, etc. All of those would make for a stronger episode.

It sounds like the major conflict was between Blue and Mac so I doubt that this moment was too much of a distraction, but I'm guessing it could've been better.

The base premise of the show and first episode/movie is that Mac's mom thinks he's too old for an imaginary friend, and needs to grow up and get rid of Bloo. Obviously that's out of the question though since they're best friends, and just throwing him onto the street and forgetting him would be insane.

He finds out about Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends and figures Bloo can just live there, but it's supposed to be a foster home for friends whose owners' don't want them anymore and are looking to be adopted. So if Bloo gets left there some other kid could take him home. However Mac makes a deal with Madame Foster that as long as he visits the home every single day they'll consider that as proof that Mac really does still want him even if they can't live together.

The comic also introduces an imaginary friend someone had after being inspired by Frankie.

>Foster's Home may or may not be unique in what it does
>If Foster's is the only one of its kind, then when you have an imaginary friend and it's too much for your parents to handle, you have to fucking kill it
>Just because your mom tells you to

That's kind of messed up

PORN WHEN???!!!!

Wow, I wish my name was "Heroic Age".

I mean wasn't there an episode that opens of some of the fosters actually rescuing a food imaginary friend from some dogs and that's like part of what they do. Doesn't fosters actively go around saving them?

I was always pissed off they didnt ever show her face. Im sure she was hot

>Western writers and directors and animators don't encode meaning into literally EVERYTHING they do

I really, REALLY want to see more of Mac's mom.
Just what is he doing with her shoe?

I feel like he was hiding it to keep her in the house for some reason. Don't remember exactly why.

She imagined her sons

God, if my parents took away my personal sex slave with no basic human rights, id fucking kill them. Id cover up their murders by imagining replacements of them that are completly loyal to me and do what ever i say

Is Fosters the only foster care place/establishment for imaginary friends? If this isn't established then it's easy to assume there's tons of ways he could of gotten rid of Bloo.

You can use whatever dumb name you want when your job is as glorious and vital as "Letterer"

Wasn't it the ep where the friends were in the apartment and he was distracting her from exiting the bedroom

just look at that picture, look at her design, she's obviously one of those women married to their jobs and with white collar jobs, probably a heartless attorney or something even worse, an accountant

Yes

as an apologist of this scene, I would always say that it was justified to do this because the imaginary friend was food

I think Foster's Imaginary Home would make for an amazing reboot told through Pixar's perspective.
Pixar would be all over this incredible, yet underplayed idea.

They didn't treat Sam Burger the same.

Letterers are important and Heroic Age was the colorist

Her design is Frankie but with brown hair, seen only from behind.

>Fosters is a universe where everyone has the powers of a god as a child, even able to create convincing human facsimiles such as
What a terrifying world in which to live

>Teenagers regularly create violent, barely controllable monsters that they make fight, or worse, use to attack their enemies
>Or hyper-sexualized versions of girls they want to fuck in their lives
>Or a combination of the two
It's far from ideal

Careful with that edge buddy, it’s your own fault for not imagining one that disguises itself

Just think. Kids in North Korea are imagining the kim family as true gods of war while child soldiers in the middle East and Africa are creating imaginary war friends for covering fire.