Well, first of all, I loved this show! I found it uniquely hilarious, it had a style similar to Fosters (though on a more minor scale). I loved the characters, all of them. Admittedly, there were no strong antagonists, but that doesn't spell death for a show, I mean, look at Fosters. Though, again, MLAATR was a super-hero show, so I guess that may make a bigger difference. I don't see much wrong creatively, but history has shown us that network execs are dumb. I won't bother backing up this statement with examples unless asked, cause everyone probably agrees with me. I don't think good ratings for one show has anything to do with cancellations of another. I think time-shifting does have a lot. Look at Fox shows that have been unjustly cancelled. I do think that networks put too much emphasis on the word "new". New is not really good for TV. New is something that hasn't had time to develop it's style properly, or it's characters. But in all other things that exec-type people work with, new is good, so the execs try to keep the show turnover at about each show having four seasons on average, and that's if they're good. I realise right now I probably should have used paragraphs, but it's too late for that. Essentially, I think it's boneheadedness of execs in general, and in specific, promoting new shows at the expense of enhancing existing ones.
Thank you for the serious chunk of your life you just wasted reading this.
And BTW, if your name, Shelltoon, refers to Sheldon from the aforementioned show, then good on you. I liked that guy. He was cool.
__________________
Unconscious like a fox!
|