Not even a month later and this is outdated. Personally, the wait was more of a meme to me than anything else.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Post your searing hot takes
- Thread starter Yung Dramps
- Start date
Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs is a classic cartoon short with phenomenal music and singing and deserves to be remembered even if its racist caricatures are unfortunate and deplorable (the studio was actually approached by black people who wanted representation). Don't believe me?
"For all its infamy, Coal Black came about out of Bob Clampett's deep love of black jazz music and was a serious effort to give work to black performers. Clampett even wanted an all-black band to perform all the music for the cartoon, but this was shot down by producer Leon Schlesinger, a man known for being notoriously cheap, who claimed that it would be too expensive (said band scored exactly one scene). That said, Clampett himself admitted that even his views on race at the time were dim and understood why later generations found it so offensive." (from TV Tropes)
This praise does NOT apply to the rest of The Censored Eleven though LMAO, burn that stuff.
Donkey Kong 64 is a great game and gets way too much hate (the only thing I view as excessive are the individual colored bananas)
I kinda like Blighttown in Dark Souls 1 because while annoying, it does a good job of preparing you for what most Dark Souls 1 areas will be like in terms of status effects
"For all its infamy, Coal Black came about out of Bob Clampett's deep love of black jazz music and was a serious effort to give work to black performers. Clampett even wanted an all-black band to perform all the music for the cartoon, but this was shot down by producer Leon Schlesinger, a man known for being notoriously cheap, who claimed that it would be too expensive (said band scored exactly one scene). That said, Clampett himself admitted that even his views on race at the time were dim and understood why later generations found it so offensive." (from TV Tropes)
This praise does NOT apply to the rest of The Censored Eleven though LMAO, burn that stuff.
Donkey Kong 64 is a great game and gets way too much hate (the only thing I view as excessive are the individual colored bananas)
I kinda like Blighttown in Dark Souls 1 because while annoying, it does a good job of preparing you for what most Dark Souls 1 areas will be like in terms of status effects
Last edited:
Modern Kirby's edginess is getting stale.
Part of Kirby's identity at this point is the contrast between its lovable cute storybook characters/worlds, and its more serious, massive scale, scary, eldritch-like, off-the-wall final/secret bosses.
Nowadays, though, the point is fading to me. There seem to be edgy guys for spectacle, Youtube lore videos, and just inertia.
One, there's just so many of these guys that it isn't special or shocking anymore. It's expected. Originally, the contrast between the cute and the scary was more pronounced, because Kirby didn't have guys like this before. It had some more serious final bosses, like Nightmare, but nothing in the vein of 0 or 0² with their blood, alienness, and secretiveness. But the roster of these guys continued, continued, and continued. Drawcia Soul, Dark Nebula, Galacta Knight, Marx Soul, Magolor Soul, Morpho Knight, Star Dream (Soul OS), Void (Soul / Termina), to name a few. There's also our friends in Forgotten Land who I won't name for spoilers, and other guys who you might include too, or who I forgot about.
1.5, I see a "power creep" in how outlandish and hardcore and extreme the new guys are. They increasingly come across as trying too hard and losing their cool in the process, grasping at whatever relatively shallow idea sounds epic. Zero shot blood, but like, he's still, like, an eyeball. He is an eyeball. Compare that to this.
I'm not feeling it. I'm really not. What are we doing here. This reads like bad fanfiction. Harder to feel shook up by the guy when I'm stuck wondering how to pronounce his name.
Second, the original "Eldritch Bosses" had thematic and storytelling importance, especially the first one. I'm not familiar with every newer Kirby game, but for the ones I am, some (not all) of their "Eldritch Bosses" feel pretty pointless and random in comparison.
Zero has a clear-cut role in Dream Land 3. Dream Land 3 is a game about small acts of social kindness. Each level, you can help different characters with some trouble – find something they lost, reunite them with a loved one, or just considerately not step on their flower selves. If you choose to, they give you a Heart Star. These matter because, without all the Heart Stars, you can physically pummel the final boss out (Dark Matter possessing King Dedede), but you can't fully clean the darkness from the land. Only with these small acts of kindness can you create the Love-Love stick to confront the root problem, Zero, and entity that has Zero kindness and love.
0²'s role is less clear-cut, but I see an interesting read, too. Kirby 64 is big on seeing new things and meeting new people, gameplay and otherwise. It starts with a meeting between Kirby and a totally new character from a totally new place, Ribbon, as they agree to work together to find the Crystal Shards. Then, you literally play in a new 2.5D perspective, mixing and experimenting with existing abilities to find brand new ones. Your party is former enemies (King Dedede, Waddle Dee), new characters (Ribbon), and someone who could fit into either category, depending on how you interpret her character (Adeleine). All working together for the first time. You travel to whole new planets, lovingly crafted with beautiful environments and music the whole way through, inviting you to just stop, look and listen. Who would be the ultimate enemy, the opposite of that love for new fun and beauty?
0², who wants to fill all these worlds with Dark Matter to make them boring Dark Matter repeats of each other. 0², whose own Dark Star world is a boring black blob with nothing to do in it. 0², who is the same guy you already beat a game ago. 0², who does everything on its own, who controls people instead of meeting them, who encapsulates a perfectly homogenous, stagnant, boring world.
Part of Kirby's identity at this point is the contrast between its lovable cute storybook characters/worlds, and its more serious, massive scale, scary, eldritch-like, off-the-wall final/secret bosses.
Nowadays, though, the point is fading to me. There seem to be edgy guys for spectacle, Youtube lore videos, and just inertia.
One, there's just so many of these guys that it isn't special or shocking anymore. It's expected. Originally, the contrast between the cute and the scary was more pronounced, because Kirby didn't have guys like this before. It had some more serious final bosses, like Nightmare, but nothing in the vein of 0 or 0² with their blood, alienness, and secretiveness. But the roster of these guys continued, continued, and continued. Drawcia Soul, Dark Nebula, Galacta Knight, Marx Soul, Magolor Soul, Morpho Knight, Star Dream (Soul OS), Void (Soul / Termina), to name a few. There's also our friends in Forgotten Land who I won't name for spoilers, and other guys who you might include too, or who I forgot about.
1.5, I see a "power creep" in how outlandish and hardcore and extreme the new guys are. They increasingly come across as trying too hard and losing their cool in the process, grasping at whatever relatively shallow idea sounds epic. Zero shot blood, but like, he's still, like, an eyeball. He is an eyeball. Compare that to this.
I'm not feeling it. I'm really not. What are we doing here. This reads like bad fanfiction. Harder to feel shook up by the guy when I'm stuck wondering how to pronounce his name.
Second, the original "Eldritch Bosses" had thematic and storytelling importance, especially the first one. I'm not familiar with every newer Kirby game, but for the ones I am, some (not all) of their "Eldritch Bosses" feel pretty pointless and random in comparison.
Zero has a clear-cut role in Dream Land 3. Dream Land 3 is a game about small acts of social kindness. Each level, you can help different characters with some trouble – find something they lost, reunite them with a loved one, or just considerately not step on their flower selves. If you choose to, they give you a Heart Star. These matter because, without all the Heart Stars, you can physically pummel the final boss out (Dark Matter possessing King Dedede), but you can't fully clean the darkness from the land. Only with these small acts of kindness can you create the Love-Love stick to confront the root problem, Zero, and entity that has Zero kindness and love.
0²'s role is less clear-cut, but I see an interesting read, too. Kirby 64 is big on seeing new things and meeting new people, gameplay and otherwise. It starts with a meeting between Kirby and a totally new character from a totally new place, Ribbon, as they agree to work together to find the Crystal Shards. Then, you literally play in a new 2.5D perspective, mixing and experimenting with existing abilities to find brand new ones. Your party is former enemies (King Dedede, Waddle Dee), new characters (Ribbon), and someone who could fit into either category, depending on how you interpret her character (Adeleine). All working together for the first time. You travel to whole new planets, lovingly crafted with beautiful environments and music the whole way through, inviting you to just stop, look and listen. Who would be the ultimate enemy, the opposite of that love for new fun and beauty?
0², who wants to fill all these worlds with Dark Matter to make them boring Dark Matter repeats of each other. 0², whose own Dark Star world is a boring black blob with nothing to do in it. 0², who is the same guy you already beat a game ago. 0², who does everything on its own, who controls people instead of meeting them, who encapsulates a perfectly homogenous, stagnant, boring world.
Last edited:
I think people have misunderstood what open-minded really means.
It's true that being open-minded means being open to ideas with which you disagree, so as to understand their perspective and where they are coming from. But Open-mindedness also means you should respect those who don’t agree with your ideas, no matter how illogical it may seem from your perspective. It's not always because they simply don't want to listen or are being difficult about it, but it can also be that they hold a different perspective from yours, and we have to respect their understanding. Sometimes it could be because the moment they have watched is similar to what they've experienced in real life, and I think it's important to respect that.
To that end, I will also say we should let people express their distaste or dislike - and remember it’s not an attack on the fans who like it. Again, it's not always because they don't want to listen or have "bad media literacy". Perhaps they dislike a redeemed character (or a character who has undergone redemption) because they feel the character hasn't done enough to earn their redemption, or the damage they've caused (whether physical or emotional) was too great. People have also disliked things for less, and that's ok. I will also say that when people express their opinions, they do it because they want to, not to feel like they’re on trial and being judged for it.
Is it sad if someone expresses their distaste for something that you personally love? Yes, yes, it is. However, it's better to respect their opinion and try to make them understand why you don't share their view. If people just ridicule them for not liking the character/media, it will not lead to a fruitful conversation about the character, and ironically, will not increase its popularity.
I will also say that if enough people dislike something, it can lead companies to develop a better product, whether it's a game, TV show, or movie. We have seen it with the Sonic movie, where Sonic's design was improved, and with the Mario Kart World updates. Sure, it would have been better if it had been great from the start, but at least it can be great now.
I’m also drawing a distinction between distaste and hatred. Hatred would be like filming yourself smashing a figurine of a fictional character or wishing a character would be shoved into a locker. That's not dislikeness, that's just hatred.
We should let people voice their dislike — their honest opinion — instead of forcing them to see “the bright side” of things.
It's true that being open-minded means being open to ideas with which you disagree, so as to understand their perspective and where they are coming from. But Open-mindedness also means you should respect those who don’t agree with your ideas, no matter how illogical it may seem from your perspective. It's not always because they simply don't want to listen or are being difficult about it, but it can also be that they hold a different perspective from yours, and we have to respect their understanding. Sometimes it could be because the moment they have watched is similar to what they've experienced in real life, and I think it's important to respect that.
To that end, I will also say we should let people express their distaste or dislike - and remember it’s not an attack on the fans who like it. Again, it's not always because they don't want to listen or have "bad media literacy". Perhaps they dislike a redeemed character (or a character who has undergone redemption) because they feel the character hasn't done enough to earn their redemption, or the damage they've caused (whether physical or emotional) was too great. People have also disliked things for less, and that's ok. I will also say that when people express their opinions, they do it because they want to, not to feel like they’re on trial and being judged for it.
Is it sad if someone expresses their distaste for something that you personally love? Yes, yes, it is. However, it's better to respect their opinion and try to make them understand why you don't share their view. If people just ridicule them for not liking the character/media, it will not lead to a fruitful conversation about the character, and ironically, will not increase its popularity.
I will also say that if enough people dislike something, it can lead companies to develop a better product, whether it's a game, TV show, or movie. We have seen it with the Sonic movie, where Sonic's design was improved, and with the Mario Kart World updates. Sure, it would have been better if it had been great from the start, but at least it can be great now.
I’m also drawing a distinction between distaste and hatred. Hatred would be like filming yourself smashing a figurine of a fictional character or wishing a character would be shoved into a locker. That's not dislikeness, that's just hatred.
We should let people voice their dislike — their honest opinion — instead of forcing them to see “the bright side” of things.
This idea struggles because its idea of "opinion" is vague, and getting into the weeds of what an opinion is will undo the idea. You mention hatred as one reason an opinion can lose respect, and there are many others.
If someone has the following opinion, should I respect it?
"Being gay is immoral. People do immoral stuff all the time, so I won't hate you for doing immoral things–it doesn't come from hatred–but you shouldn't be gay."
Of course not. It doesn't come from hatred, but it comes from some other reason to not disrespect opinions. That could be dogma, equating one's personal preference with morality, not critically thinking about what one's been told, or a billion other possibilities.
We can repeat this example with a billion other nonsense opinions that aren't worth respecting.
"Charizard should have a base stat total of 1."
"Mario shows a complex, rich personality in the original Super Mario Bros."
"Silksong is the easiest game ever made."
...
If we go through this enough times, we'll list a billion reasons that can disqualify a nonsense opinion from respect. And once we reach "Opinions have to be respected, unless one of these 49,873,456 caveats apply"...what are we really saying?
We'd get to "If you have a preference or personal reaction/experience on something (e.g. like, dislike), have fun go wild, but if you start talking about judgments or beliefs on what something is (e.g. this is good/bad, this should/should not exist), you need a reasonable base for me to respect your opinion."
Most opinions are beliefs and judgments, and when beliefs and judgments are worth respecting, they come from some kind of competency and understanding. If someone has a competent understanding about how Pokemon base stats should work, they won't say Charizard will have a base stat total of 1.
If you think the redeemed character should not have been redeemed, and you want to express that opinion (distinct from a personal preference that they not be redeemed), find a reasonable base for it. If you find a reasonable base and people are still unfairly jerkish about it, either you're wrong or they are about the reasonableness, and either you're wrong or they're wrong about what fair behavior is. But that's just like, people being wrong on the internet sometimes, pretty normal and not telling us a lot about broader principles.
Here's a relevant take of mine: At least when it comes to art, "like/dislike" and "good/bad" are the same thing. "Good" and "bad" are not inherent qualities of anything; they are value judgements that we impose on things according to our belief systems and attitudes. The difference between calling a video game good and saying that you like it is merely one of assertiveness; the former conflates your subjective judgement with objective reality, leaving less room for ambiguity or alternative value judgements. Because it does those things, we tend to demand a more robust and thorough justification before we'll accept it as valid, but I do not think it is a fundamentally different sentiment. At least, I cannot contrive a position, even an absurd one, where I can find a piece of art to simultaneously be good and something I dislike. I do not believe that there is such a thing as objectively good or objectively bad art, so the notion that a piece of art that I dislike could be objectively good is a total nonstarter. I can say that the existence of art that I dislike is good for the world and society, but I don't think that's the same thing.
I agree that when people disagree with something, they should at least provide a logical reason why they dislike it. For example:
These opinions, I agree, would be dismissed because the issue stems from the fact that they propose a significant change, and it would lead to high expectations that the evidence would be backed up. But it can’t because it’s not based on any foundational evidence or has no logical merit. The former would even change the fundamental design of Charizard. When it comes to preferences, I do think that objectivity is left to be desired. For example, while one can say I prefer Venusaur over Charizard because of its unique design and being a top competitive Pokémon, another can prefer Venusaur because I liked how high it looked in Pokémon Stadium. Whilst the latter may seem a shallow point, both are, in the end, valid points for liking Venusaur. However,
I haven't played Silksong, but I have heard about how difficult it is, so it would be reasonable to disagree with that opinion. However, someone could hypothetically find the game easier or less challenging compared to how others have experienced it under various circumstances, even if it is unpopular or doesn't sound illogical.
I can say that I found Cynthia not a difficult fight because I had a Levitate Bronzong (a Pokémon I considered useful throughout my Platinum playthrough) that was able to contribute a lot against her team. Or how I found Wallace a difficult boss because I felt there weren’t many good electric and grass types to help out. Whilst my opinions may be flawed, open to critique, and perhaps not popular within the Pokémon community (who are traumatized by Cynthia’s dominance on the Pokémon battlefield), they are based on my experiences, which can lead to valid conclusions, even if they don’t seem logical to the majority.
The other reason I mentioned that people should respect those who dislike an idea is that they may be uncomfortable with it, even if the idea makes sense to some.
Like in the 3 Houses fandom, Ingrid (one of my favourite characters) was allegedly one of the most controversial characters in the game. The reason: because after the people of Duscur were accused of commiting regicide in Fareghus (which they were falsely accused) and Ingrid was prejudiced against Dedue (a member of Duscur). And people have given reasonable counterarguments on why they're upset with it, such as Ingrid telling on how back then she thought that the people of Duscur got what's coming to them (which is insensitive when she's telling this is front of Dedue) or how maybe asking a genocide survivor to why not speak back against the people who have detested and ruined Duscur civilisation is not the best strat for redemption. Or how the support just doesn't focus much on how Dedue suffered in the genocide of his people. But the issue is not whether they believe Ingrid changed for the better, but rather how they convey it. Most of the time, it would be dismissed by saying that she changes in the C/B support without further explanation as to why or how she changed, or how she helps Dedue. Or worse, comparing Ingrid's racism to that of other characters, such as how Felix treated Dedue (i.e., calling Dedue a dog) or how Hilda was prejudiced towards Cyril (an Almyran whose race unfortunately received a bad name). It usually leads to calling them hypocrites or a misogynist, and that the only reason they don't get as much flak is because they're hot.
The thing that upsets me is that there are valid reasons for this, as people can have different perspectives; like how Felix called him a dog because Dedue revealed that because he feels his life was nothing until Dimitri saved him, he feels he must obey any command Dimitri commands, even if it will be killing his comrades, the elderly, or children. Or how it doesn't portray Felix as a sympathetic person, but rather as an insensitive jerk towards Dedue, even if he has a fair point. Or that maybe there are so many good things about Felix that the bad stuff tends to be overlooked.
However, the main issue is that you have arguments like labeling all critics of Ingrid as just hypocrites, which will demean those who want to discuss why they dislike it, which will scare them from talking about it. And ironically, it never boosted Ingrid's popularity despite their intentions.
Although Felix and Hilda drew more criticism—thanks to widely discussed supports—Ingrid’s popularity never climbed. Fans often note that she ‘improved’ in C/B support without detailing how she actively helps Dedue on-screen. As a result, deeper facets of her character—her knighthood, her fraught relationship with her father—hardly get mentioned. I love Ingrid, but this near-silence around her growth is one of my biggest pet peeves.
"I found Silksong/Cynthia easy" versus "Silksong and Cynthia are easy" are very different ideas that are getting mixed together here. One is a description of an experience, which would only be wrong if the person was like, lying. The other is a claim on broader reality (implicitly both a claim on what "easy" should mean, and applying that claim to Silksong) that can have good or bad support. Experiences can lead to valid conclusions, and it can also lead to invalid conclusions. Some people are victims of a crime from a person of a certain race/gender/etc., and this experience pushes them towards racism/sexism/etc. Racism and sexism aren't reasonable opinions that deserve my respect, whether they're informed by experience or not.
This isn't "all opinions should be respected," this is "I think my opinion specifically deserves respect because it has this reasonable base." To which I refer to:
_____________________________________________________________________________
I don't per se disagree with many of these sentences, but I disagree with the direction they lead to.
My POV is like, good/bad are very often used by people in the manner you describe, and your description is a cool lens I hadn't thought of laying out like that.
However, I do not use good/bad this way myself. I think Hydreigon is a good piece of art (design, concept, storytelling, what have you) and I dislike it. It shows competency in how it is crafted, but its successes are not successes that I am interested in.
I dislike this use of the objective/subjective distinction and think it conflates some different ideas.
To me, "I like Hydreigon" is an objective statement, even though the preference is subjective (open to alternative value judgments). The statement describes a specific positive mental phenomenon that either is there or isn't.
The subjective part comes with "Hydreigon deserves to be liked," which may or may not accompany the first part. I sometimes call these statements "semi-subjective" because they have some properties of subjective preferences and some properties of objective claims.
Like subjective preferences, semi-subjective claims are open to ambiguity and alternative value judgments. Blocking those out is not my goal here. However, different efforts to tackle this ambiguity can contain greater levels of knowledge, argument-building skill, etc.
A lens I like to use is like, interpreting law and forming political opinions is a subjective process (ambiguous and open to alternatives), but some people (like judges) generally back their efforts by more knowledge and skill than others (like grade schoolers).
I'm a bit confused here on the difference. Like of course I understand a definition of "good art" may not mean "good for the world." But aren't both these opinions lacking objective ground to work from, since there's any idea of 'good for the world' depends on subjective value judgments?
I think this is easy as hell. red dead redemption is an extremely well crafted experience in gameplay and lore. i also hate it and found it the most dogshit game of the year back then
how can one hate rdr2
i learned that day that i truly with the bottom of my heart hate american cowboys
To the both of you: I suppose that where we diverge on this point is that I do not think "well-crafted" is the same thing as "good." People who are interested in media criticism often, whether through paraphrasing something they heard or independent reinvention, echo Goethe's critical questions when describing how they parse media as good or bad:
It is my personal conviction that this third question is no more subjective than the second, nor should our answer to it have any less of an impact on our parsing of something as good or bad. In other words, a thing can achieve exactly what it sets out to do with a high degree of competency, as in your examples of Hydreigon's design and Red Dead Redemption, but if I do not feel that what it sets out to do is worth doing, I parse it as bad. I do not take that parsing as a true or universal reality; it is merely my personal opinion, but my personal experience of things is the only one I have access to.
- What is it trying to achieve?
- Was it successful?
It is my personal conviction that this third question is no more subjective than the second, nor should our answer to it have any less of an impact on our parsing of something as good or bad. In other words, a thing can achieve exactly what it sets out to do with a high degree of competency, as in your examples of Hydreigon's design and Red Dead Redemption, but if I do not feel that what it sets out to do is worth doing, I parse it as bad. I do not take that parsing as a true or universal reality; it is merely my personal opinion, but my personal experience of things is the only one I have access to.
Across the Spider-Verse should not be the sole future of animation art styles
I liked Into the Spider-Verse's art but Across just went overboard. I just don't like how the backgrounds constantly change color mid-scene telling you what to feel instead of letting the scenes speak for themselves. It might be eye-catching, yes, but sometimes scenes just need to speak for themselves. The spectacle drowns out the actual emotion because it's so desperate to not lose your attention
Oh yeah, and while not a hot take, treat your animators like actual human beings please, Lord and Miller are so psychotic
I liked Into the Spider-Verse's art but Across just went overboard. I just don't like how the backgrounds constantly change color mid-scene telling you what to feel instead of letting the scenes speak for themselves. It might be eye-catching, yes, but sometimes scenes just need to speak for themselves. The spectacle drowns out the actual emotion because it's so desperate to not lose your attention
Oh yeah, and while not a hot take, treat your animators like actual human beings please, Lord and Miller are so psychotic
Whilst it's true that both can be different, couldn't one also lead one conclusion to another as it's not mutually exclusive in the eyes of the player? Like if one player finds Cynthia not a difficult fight, wouldn't they reasonably believe that it isn't a difficult boss? It wouldn't be like they're trying to dictate on what would be an easy fight or not, they would be just talking about it from their own experience, which can be valid or not depending on their hurdles. If someone would say/post "Silksong/Cynthia is a easy fight", not all are saying that it is easy in general, they might not be enough explaining in full that it was easy for them, or how difficult the hurdles will have to go through.
I'm not saying that they have to agree-to-disagree on it or even respect each other for it. I'm saying that people should express their distaste or dislike of something (even if it does sound unpopular or illogical) without fear of retaliation, which was the main point of my post earlier. Because of it, there aren't going to be many fruitful discussions about it and it's just going to give them a bad name for the fans who aren't terrible. It can also possibly prohibit possible improvements in the future, like what happened before like Multiversus or the Minecraft movie, where because fans who had criticisms of both weren't taken seriously and memes about it, when both were released they did not turn out great.
Courage the Cowardly Dog isn't as deep as most people make it out to be.
Don't get me wrong, I do like the show. Courage really does have standout episodes like "The Mask" or "The Tower of Dr. Zalost." the latter I would probably say is my favorite episode of any cartoon. In a perfect world, every episode would be a 22-minute epic where we get characters with actual motivation. The show's handful of recurring villains do help, but I wish the show had more of them instead of one-offs. The problem is that if you take away the pretty good visuals with all their medium blending imagery, the show feels rather...hollow?
When you have a borderline mute protagonist in Courage (especially after Season 1), Muriel who is just there to be a kidnapped old lady, and Eustace, who, outside some very rare exceptions like "The Curse Of Shirley" is usually just a cranky old jerk, it's really hard for me to stay continually engaged. Most episodes do have a good sense of stakes, but when your characters are this basic and formulaic it's a little hard for episodes to not leave my brain the second after I watch them.
The villains of the show definitely look unique, but about 85% of them follow the same formula. They show up and cause chaos because....because....because....they dislike the main characters for some unexplained reason. And there lies the problem. If you're gonna have basic protagonists, you gotta have fleshed out villains to balance it out. And Courage just isn't comfortable doing that mostly. Again, occasionally you'll get some really compelling conflict like Remembrance of Courage Past, but it only fleshes out our characters by like 2% and then every other episode will be back to the standard static characters. It feels like the show wants to tell deeper stories but is too afraid to consistently pull the trigger.
Courage villains lean too hard on subtext and mysterious motives, which can work for a couple villains like say, Michael Myers from Halloween - there is terror in the unknown, after all - but when you have a four-season cartoon where most of your villains are as vague as Michael Myers they tend to be interchangeable, which is a word I didn't think I'd use for such a visually striking show. I get it, writers for cartoons aimed at children usually have to rely on subtext to make them palatable to children, but I just wouldn't mind a little something more. Look at Him from The Powerpuff Girls (1998). He sows disorder in various ways because he craves anarchy and confusion, yet his plans are almost always unique. He has a deep, terrifying voice, a cold, cunning, manipulative personality that goes beyond his nightmarish look. That is how you create a villain based off vagueness correctly.
Courage the Cowardly Dog is a good show. But I have a hard time finding a cartoon simpler than it, for better or worse.
Don't get me wrong, I do like the show. Courage really does have standout episodes like "The Mask" or "The Tower of Dr. Zalost." the latter I would probably say is my favorite episode of any cartoon. In a perfect world, every episode would be a 22-minute epic where we get characters with actual motivation. The show's handful of recurring villains do help, but I wish the show had more of them instead of one-offs. The problem is that if you take away the pretty good visuals with all their medium blending imagery, the show feels rather...hollow?
When you have a borderline mute protagonist in Courage (especially after Season 1), Muriel who is just there to be a kidnapped old lady, and Eustace, who, outside some very rare exceptions like "The Curse Of Shirley" is usually just a cranky old jerk, it's really hard for me to stay continually engaged. Most episodes do have a good sense of stakes, but when your characters are this basic and formulaic it's a little hard for episodes to not leave my brain the second after I watch them.
The villains of the show definitely look unique, but about 85% of them follow the same formula. They show up and cause chaos because....because....because....they dislike the main characters for some unexplained reason. And there lies the problem. If you're gonna have basic protagonists, you gotta have fleshed out villains to balance it out. And Courage just isn't comfortable doing that mostly. Again, occasionally you'll get some really compelling conflict like Remembrance of Courage Past, but it only fleshes out our characters by like 2% and then every other episode will be back to the standard static characters. It feels like the show wants to tell deeper stories but is too afraid to consistently pull the trigger.
Courage villains lean too hard on subtext and mysterious motives, which can work for a couple villains like say, Michael Myers from Halloween - there is terror in the unknown, after all - but when you have a four-season cartoon where most of your villains are as vague as Michael Myers they tend to be interchangeable, which is a word I didn't think I'd use for such a visually striking show. I get it, writers for cartoons aimed at children usually have to rely on subtext to make them palatable to children, but I just wouldn't mind a little something more. Look at Him from The Powerpuff Girls (1998). He sows disorder in various ways because he craves anarchy and confusion, yet his plans are almost always unique. He has a deep, terrifying voice, a cold, cunning, manipulative personality that goes beyond his nightmarish look. That is how you create a villain based off vagueness correctly.
Courage the Cowardly Dog is a good show. But I have a hard time finding a cartoon simpler than it, for better or worse.