>"S-shows made to sell toys are bad."
>"Why?"
>"T-they just are okay?!"
I've never seen a more massive cope in my life.
These shows were absolutely creator driven. If you're trying to claim that writers aren't creators, then you've lost the plot.
These shows weren't written, drawn, or produced by corporate executives. Merch pays for the shows: this is even true NOW.
Since you deleted the last thread I'll just repost it again.
Transformers and the 1987 TMNT cartoon were made to sell toys and are indeed bad, don't try to use them as some kind of example of quality cartoons. Not sure about most of the other ones but I know Flintstones and Jetsons were like proto-Adult animation, so not meant to sell toys.
If you want reasons for why cartoons made to sell toys tend to be bad, I'll give you some right now.
No, having a toyline does not inherently mean a show is bad, that is true. However, this does mean the show will have to give over some if not most of the control over to the toy company and this can have disastrous consequences. First off, the toy company considers the show advertisement for their product and primarily receives returns in form of toy sales, if they are the sole investors the budget could get too thin.
Secondly, in order to maximize the number of people who see it (and thus increase toy sales), a show may try to get a syndication deal ASAP. Usually this means pumping out 65 episodes or more as quickly as possible and on the already low budget, this will essentially remove quality control and rewrites.
Thirdly, because the toys can be quite numerous and are quickly replaced on shelves, shows created to sell toys can employ weird creative decisions like having having way too many characters run around at the same time or have major characters be written out of the show for no clear reason.
Bump
Everyne wants to sell something. Netflix sells subscriptions. Artist their labour. As long it is good or entertaining, why not? At this point you can give them money, because they create smething that is well done.
>As long as it's good or entertaining
Most of the time they aren't.
>No, having a toyline does not inherently mean a show is bad, that is true. However, this does mean the show will have to give over some if not most of the control over to the toy company and this can have disastrous consequences. First off, the toy company considers the show advertisement for their product and primarily receives returns in form of toy sales, if they are the sole investors the budget could get too thin.
Secondly, in order to maximize the number of people who see it (and thus increase toy sales), a show may try to get a syndication deal ASAP. Usually this means pumping out 65 episodes or more as quickly as possible and on the already low budget, this will essentially remove quality control and rewrites.
Thirdly, because the toys can be quite numerous and are quickly replaced on shelves, shows created to sell toys can employ weird creative decisions like having having way too many characters run around at the same time or have major characters be written out of the show for no clear reason.
Tmnt or Transformers are not bad. You could say they are not literature. But still normal stories created to infuse the toys with lore or characters.
>Flintstones and Jetsons
Basically just to sell tv to family and create places for advertisment to reach the perfect targetgroup.
>Screeching autist having argument in his own head
>Most of the time they aren't.
Examples? Otherwise, there are bad and good ones. Or even entertaining ones.
There's a difference between a creator driven show that artists actually want to work on and a toy company commissioning a cartoon to sell toys that no animator wants to work on. This is why nicktoons was such a big deal back in the day.
decider.com
Transformers, 1980s TMNT, He-man, Thundercats. All of them had terrible animation and horrible writing.
Here's your toy driven animation bro.