Unpopular Opinions About Western Animation -

Trilby

Sorry, but not sorry!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Least the way Maleficent died was pretty awesome. Phillip chucks the sword into her chest, she falls off a cliff and nothing is left but a big old black stain where she fell. Really makes you feel like she’s some otherworldly demon.
Yep, they at least made the film felt worth it for that moment. I've always enjoyed this moment many times.
 
Action shows are severely overrated by the "cartoon community", while silly comedies are usually labeled as bad instantly
The problem comedies have is that too many of them are "The main characters are fucking dumb" like Spongbob or over the top stoner shit like Aqua Teen Hunger Force. When was the last comedy like The Finstones or the Jetsons where half the cast wasn't autistic as fucking hell.
 

Ruin

#respectskeltins
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The problem comedies have is that too many of them are "The main characters are fucking dumb" like Spongbob or over the top stoner shit like Aqua Teen Hunger Force. When was the last comedy like The Finstones or the Jetsons where half the cast wasn't autistic as fucking hell.
Take that back fucker. ATHF is a national treasure.
 

Overcast

Dat Booty Tho
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I don't know if I really consider Gaston a Disney villain. He was dumb and selfish but putting him in the same category as monsters like Frolo and Jafar feels wrong.
I mean, the dude tried to blackmail Belle into marrying him by threatening to put her dad in an asylum. But that's shit you'd normally see on one of those trashy reality shows. Also, him trying to kill the Beast was just another way of showing off to both the town and Belle.

Meanwhile, you have a guy who took a dead woman's baby, tried to drown it, but instead raised him to believe that he was a monster that shouldn't go outside Notre Dame.

EDIT: Oh right, and the burning of gypsies, forgot to mention that.
 

Nauseated Courgi

It's an Ass-Fuck-Get-Fucked world out there
kiwifarms.net
The problem comedies have is that too many of them are "The main characters are fucking dumb" like Spongbob or over the top stoner shit like Aqua Teen Hunger Force. When was the last comedy like The Finstones or the Jetsons where half the cast wasn't autistic as fucking hell.
To be fair to Spongebob, seasons 1-3 gave him more of an "adult that's a child at heart" thing going on. Past that point, they made him more and more childish and stupid to the point it became unbearable.
 
To be fair to Spongebob, seasons 1-3 gave him more of an "adult that's a child at heart" thing going on. Past that point, they made him more and more childish and stupid to the point it became unbearable.
That is only an excuse for Spongebob though.

Patrick was always exceptional, Mr. Crabs was always a fucking one of Trump's Chosen People and Squidward was a always a twitter account from being Spoony.
 

Nauseated Courgi

It's an Ass-Fuck-Get-Fucked world out there
kiwifarms.net
Patrick was always exceptional, Mr. Crabs was always a fucking one of Trump's Chosen People and Squidward was a always a twitter account from being Spoony.
From seasons 1-3:

Patrick was the dopey, but lovable best friend of Spongebob. He gave off the feeling of being that one friend that does some stupid stuff sometimes, but it's a charming trait of theirs. Not to mention, him also being that one guy Spongebob can always talk to whenever he's troubled about something.

Squidward was a total scrouge, but he's was more of that grumpy, level headed adult to Spongebob's childishness. Also, despite how much Spongebob annoys him, he has shown in several episodes (again from seasons 1-3) that despite being annoyed by him, he appreciates his company and he ends up feeling bad when he upsets him.

You've got a point about Mr. Krabs, though, I don't think he's really changed all that much post-season 3.

Post-season three, they've essentially taken the core aspect of the characters and essentially based them entirely around that. Leading to how they are post-season 3.
 
Last edited:

Sayon

kiwifarms.net
I don't know if I really consider Gaston a Disney villain. He was dumb and selfish but putting him in the same category as monsters like Frolo and Jafar feels wrong.
He's more of a villain than Shere Khan (just a beast) and Hans (only a villain from lazy writing).
 
Last edited:

JohnDoe

First of May, Outdoor Fuckin' Starts Today!
kiwifarms.net
I mean, the dude tried to blackmail Belle into marrying him by threatening to put her dad in an asylum. But that's shit you'd normally see on one of those trashy reality shows. Also, him trying to kill the Beast was just another way of showing off to both the town and Belle.
By the conventions of the time, and his understanding of the world, he wasn't necessarily being evil. Narcissistic/egotistic and callous? A prick? Sure, maybe, but not really to the point of a villain in my thoughts, just an antagonist.

Like the best antagonist, he feels justified and righteous in what he's doing - here's Belle, a beautiful but mixed up girl who's dad has somehow convinced her that its the modern age and women can just be independent and not be married and do whatever. Its France, pre-industrial revolution, the only unmarried 'independent' women are nuns or whores, not peasant girls in rural villages. It might take 10 or 15 years before dad kicks the bucket and the blinders of that delusion fall off, and by then Belle is past marrying age and into a spiral of spinsterhood and poverty. Better to rip the bandage off now in hopes that she'd realize she's being fucking weird and do something normal for the first time in her life, like marry. Who better to marry than Gaston, of course, he's the most handsome and competent man (by the standards of the time and place) in the village - he's practically doing her the favor!

Then of course Belle shows up with a 'magic mirror' showing a 'Beast' in a 'magic castle' who has obviously bewitched her, which is like a checklist for Devilish Shit that no God-fearing Catholic peasant of France would suffer to live. (The absence of the village priest is a bit jarring in these scenes, but you know, Disney.) While the village may have a headsman or mayor equivalent, Gaston is the de facto leader of the village by virtue of his charisma, leadership skills, competence, and amazing ability to improvise a stirring song to instill bravery and call the menfolk to action. Gaston, and no villager, has information to run counter to the obvious assumption that a giant fuckin' Beast with a magic mirror is a bloodthirsty demon sent by the devil or some otherworldly fairytale shit, and in either case life in rural France at the time was hard enough without throwing a new weird factor like magic castles into the mix. Better to kill everything and burn it all to the ground so that life could proceed as per normal, obviously.

Now, would killing the Beast serve Gaston's personal interests? Sure, it would make him look like a badass motherfucker and make him a local legendary hero. It would likely also shake the demonic influence on Belle, and the grateful maid would fall into his arms. Would it serve him exclusively, or to the detriment of the village? Not really. The town would still be rid of a hideous demon that presented a threat, the other men with him would gain shares of honor and prestige, and Belle would be freed of the devil's insidious grip. Everybody wins, from his perspective, even if he gets a slightly larger share of the prizes. Which he may well deserve, since he is leading from the front, mustering the troops, and generally being the most badass and brave of all the menfolk of the village. Lets not pretend that there isn't precedent for a village hero storming an evil castle, defeating an inhuman monster, and marrying the now freed maiden.
 
Last edited:

Overcast

Dat Booty Tho
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
By the conventions of the time, and his understanding of the world, he wasn't necessarily being evil. Narcissistic/egotistic and callous? A prick? Sure, maybe, but not really to the point of a villain in my thoughts, just an antagonist.

Like the best antagonist, he feels justified and righteous in what he's doing - here's Belle, a beautiful but mixed up girl who's dad has somehow convinced her that its the modern age and women can just be independent and not be married and do whatever. Its France, pre-industrial revolution, the only unmarried 'independent' women are nuns or whores, not peasant girls in rural villages. It might take 10 or 15 years before dad kicks the bucket and the blinders of that delusion fall off, and by then Belle is past marrying age and into a spiral of spinsterhood and poverty. Better to rip the bandage off now in hopes that she'd realize she's being fucking weird and do something normal for the first time in her life, like marry. Who better to marry than Gaston, of course, he's the most handsome and competent man (by the standards of the time and place) in the village - he's practically doing her the favor!

Then of course Belle shows up with a 'magic mirror' showing a 'Beast' in a 'magic castle' who has obviously bewitched her, which is like a checklist for Devilish Shit that no God-fearing Catholic peasant of France would suffer to live. (The absence of the village priest is a bit jarring in these scenes, but you know, Disney.) While the village may have a headsman or mayor equivalent, Gaston is the de facto leader of the village by virtue of his charisma, leadership skills, competence, and amazing ability to improvise a stirring song to instill bravery and call the menfolk to action. Gaston, and no villager, has information to run counter to the obvious assumption that a giant fuckin' Beast with a magic mirror isn't a bloodthirsty demon sent by the devil or some otherworldly fairytale shit, and in either case life in rural France at the time was hard enough without throwing a new weird factor like magic castles into the mix. Better to kill everything and burn it all to the ground so that life could proceed as per normal, obviously.

Now, would killing the Beast serve Gaston's personal interests? Sure, it would make him look like a badass motherfucker and make him a local legendary hero. It would likely also shake the demonic influence on Belle, and the grateful maid would fall into his arms. Would it serve him exclusively, or to the detriment of the village? Not really. The town would still be rid of a hideous demon that presented a threat, the other men with him would gain shares of honor and prestige, and Belle would be freed of the devil's insidious grip. Everybody wins, from his perspective, even if he gets a slightly larger share of the prizes. Which he may well deserve, since he is leading from the front, mustering the troops, and generally being the most badass and brave of all the menfolk of the village. Lets not pretend that there isn't precedent for a village hero storming an evil castle, defeating an inhuman monster, and marrying the now freed maiden.
You convinced me.

Gaston is the tragic hero who fell victim to historical revisionism.
 

Sayon

kiwifarms.net
I'm still convinced that Hans being a villain was a last minute change, no matter what evidence to the contrary.
It is. It's already been shown that Hans started as a character named Admiral Westergaard who wasn't a villain since Elsa was the villain. Elsa didn't stop being a villain until a point in Let It Go's production. He was intended from all evidence by the time Kristoff was cemented as Anna's beau to be a romantic false lead for Anna, not a villain.
 

Gar For Archer

kiwifarms.net
I'm still convinced that Hans being a villain was a last minute change, no matter what evidence to the contrary.
Hans actually COULD work as a villain (or at least as an antagonist) but the way he was actually implemented in the movie was stupid because they imply that he was evil all along when it is very clear that he wasn’t.

I mean literally, just look at the first scene in which he meets Anna and gets dumped into the river. At that point he doesn’t even know she’s the princess, and the smile he gives at the end (which NOBODY ELSE CAN SEE, he’s just smiling to himself) isn’t the smile of a scheming psychopath. He also, like, genuinely tries to help get Elsa back and IIRC deflects the duke’s crossbow shot so that it wouldn’t hit her.

There’s actually a valid arc for Hans as an antagonist. He’s the youngest in a family of 12 brothers, so perhaps his interest in Anna is primarily as a means of increasing his own social standing. After Elsa runs away he takes a legitimate leadership role in Arendelle, but at some point he realizes he can turn the situation in his favor and actually become the king through marriage if Elsa never returns. His whole character is this minor royal who realizes he’ll never have any true power, and latches on to Anna because he realizes she’s his ticket to a higher throne. That’s a solid template for a rival love interest to Kristoff (who’s a humble laborer who loves Anna for who she is, not the power she affords him).

The problem is the shitty twist which makes no sense. He has no reason not to at least TRY to save Anna, because she gives him legitimacy instead of just being some guy who waltzed in and took control while the actual princess died under extremely questionable circumstances.

This can all be fixed with one simple change: he DOES try to save her with a kiss, and it fails, because he doesn’t truly love her. This fits perfectly with the characterization he’s been given and makes him a good counterpoint to Kristoff, instead of just randomly turning into a cartoonish villain. It also gives him a better reason for wanting to kill Elsa - he wants to ignore the fact that his own greed/motivations prevented him from being able to save Anna, so instead he puts the blame on Elsa for killing her and tries to kill Elsa out of vengeance.

In this scenario I don’t know what would really happen to him in the ending. I’d probably have a character mention that he snuck out on his ship in the middle of the night as a “to be continued” type of thing, and then have him return in the sequel as a witch-hunter who vows to rid the world of people withunnatural abilities.
 

One Man Bland

kiwifarms.net
It is. It's already been shown that Hans started as a character named Admiral Westergaard who wasn't a villain since Elsa was the villain. Elsa didn't stop being a villain until a point in Let It Go's production. He was intended from all evidence by the time Kristoff was cemented as Anna's beau to be a romantic false lead for Anna, not a villain.
Even with the decision to not make Elsa the villain when producing Let It Go, I still think it was a mistake to make Hans the villain. They would‘ve been better off keeping Hans as the "equally over-eager to get married" fiancé that Anna slowly realizes she has nothing in common with he was at conception and just keep the story villain-less.
 

Trilby

Sorry, but not sorry!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Even with the decision to not make Elsa the villain when producing Let It Go, I still think it was a mistake to make Hans the villain. They would‘ve been better off keeping Hans as the "equally over-eager to get married" fiancé that Anna slowly realizes she has nothing in common with he was at conception and just keep the story villain-less.
It certainly could've worked there as well by not giving us a clear villain at all. Just people with different priorities.
 
Tags
None