Why do people hate the idea of cartoons having lore?

This is the worst. The only thing that’s done this well is the Bellybuttons, but even then it wasnt high lore like GF or Amphibia.

>it is just a synonym of continuity?
Well no not really. You can have a show filled with literal one-off stories and still have continuity. Like when Regular Show brought back the ducks or Garrett Bobby Ferguson and his son, Garrett Bobby Ferguson Jr.
IMO lore is more of pre-established shit into a show. Like IMO the point where the show got lore heavy for me was with the creation of Anti-Pops, then we got all this shit about pops, his legacy, his father, his destiny, etc... In another way it's sort of like a timeline like picrel.

If the middle point was the first episode and everything afterward would be "continuity". Everything behind the first episode in terms of chronology that plays a role in establishing shit plot wise or worldbuilding wise would be "lore" i guess.

Attached: png-transparent-black-line-illustration-rectangle-parallel-timeline-angle-electronics-symmetry.png (920x317, 1.77K)

People don't hate it. People love being able to engage with the things they love on a deeper level than just passively absorbing what's on screen.

Some of the "people" on Yea Forums hate it because they hate anything with a bit of depth, complexity or moral ambiguity, because shows weren't made that was when they were 12 and anything that reminds them they're not 12 anymore is bad and evil and probably even liberal.

It's just a level of worldbuilding.

>because shows weren't made that was when they were 12 and anything that reminds them they're not 12 anymore is bad and evil and probably even liberal.
Take a break user

is a tool for hacks who cannot create something original

Simply put, it's any indication that a show's story extends past what's on-screen. All the little background details or off-handed references that don't directly relate to the plot but inform you about the world the story is set in combined form a show's lore. It's a form of passive worldbuilding, telling the viewer that the world is much bigger than the slice you're watching right now and implying a context in which the story takes place without explicitly telling you what it is. All shows have "lore" that builds up through what's happening, simply because stories don't exist without context. For example the Simpsons has a very extensive lore even if it's certainly not a lore-focused show, simply because you can piece together pieces of information to make logical assumptions about the world in which the show takes place. On the other hand, shows that focus on building up this lore will generously drop hints and references to the wider world that aren't necessary part of the plot or a background to the plot, both in order to flesh out the world in an organic way and to drive viewer interest by giving them these elements to use as discussion points.

This 100%.

>It makes things overly complicated and tiresome.
>I just don't want to think

Everything is trying to be the next A:TLA, Gravity Falls, whatever anime they watched as a kid, or god forbid AT/SU. Writers, both amateur and "professional" see/grow up on those popular things and try to emulate it in their own writing without truly understanding it or only gleaning the bad from it all. Lore only seems to be a vessel to make clunky melodrama that loosely relates to the author's personal life, but that in itself isn't wrong it just has to be done well, which it usually isn't.
that was Adventure Time's biggest flaw, plot threads would be made and just forgotten for 2 seasons only to get a half-baked resolution in a hurry.
I thought about this too, thanks for clarifying.

I like it but it usually sucks and makes no sense.

>that was Adventure Time's biggest flaw, plot threads would be made and just forgotten for 2 seasons only to get a half-baked resolution in a hurry

Good summary desu. I was interested in most of the questions the shows raised, just hardly ever satisfied with the answers. And when you did get a satisfying answer they often kept going and milking it till you no longer cared

>show has lore
>nobody gets it
name it

There's always going to be at one autist out there devoted to the lore of a show. Oftentimes to a greater degree than the actual writers

Cartoon lore is like open world games
When done right and not overused it's very fun
Atm it's a trend and usually done poorly so I'm generally repelled by it
Even if done right nowadays, I'm just sick of it

I hate the idea of bad lore.

No problem user, glad I could help clarify things

does Yea Forums have an agreement on good lore shows and bad lore shows?
Gravity Falls was a fucking shit show to me

because people who like cartoons are usually quite childish

Lorefags have a faggy attitude

Hating lore is a subversion tactic to undermine the value of western art

Gravity Falls has aged poorly. Gravity Falls has aged very poorly

Are you fucking browsing the same Yea Forums I do? Because last time I checked this board was full of people claiming that anything with more continuity than Ed Edd n Eddy is bad and that episodic shows are for some reason inherently better than story-driven shows.

Lily Orchid has rotted Yea Forums's brains.

Adventure Time was the pioneer of this so it's understandable that it ended up being very rough and unpolished. It was mostly just experimentation for the sake of it to see what they could get away with in a children's cartoon. It was disappointing to watch sometimes but in the grand scale of things I can respect them always trying different things.

Wrong. Avatar is fucking beloved and is one of the more continuity and lore-driven kids cartoons around. But there are cartoons like Steven Universe or Owl House that seem two have two modes: Episodic and lore-dump. Anything episodic is called a "townie episode", and the lore-dump only serves to satisfy people's itch for their curiosity. Most of the time, people are more engaged in theory-crafting and the mysterious setup of situations and end up being highly disappointed with the resolution.

This is because setting up a mystery is braindead easy and these writers love setting up 40 mysteries at once because every episode MUST end in a cliffhanger, and then wonders why the fanbase starts making hour-long "WHY DID STEVEN UNIVERSE SUCK?" essay videos when the series ends after a wildly disappointing conclusion. Venture Brothers is fucking nothing but lore and continuity and it's one of the more popular shows on Yea Forums, so answer me why people love that show but get pissed off at The Owl House.

By the way, this isn't just a problem with cartoons, many live-action shows do this, too (Especially Disney+ shows). It's a symptom of streaming series and binging shows where executives think people won't tune in anymore unless there's a "DUN DUN DUN" at the end of every fucking episode.

Owl House episodes don't end on cliffhangers.

> so answer me why people love that show but get pissed off at The Owl House.
Because venture bros is well written and Owl House isn’t.
Episodic or serialized, it doesn’t matter, good shows are good and bad shows are bad. Character "depth" means nothing if the character sucks and a one-note joke can be amazing if done well.

They don't. GF is just notorious for not remembering its own lore

>Owl House episodes don't end on cliffhangers.
This is just a flat-out lie. Maybe not all of them, but by season 2, a good portion of them do.

Yeah they do, what show have you been watching? They do that cheap shit all the time

Doesn't happen in Season 1

Nice goalpost, but wrong. The "mystery" of who cursed Eda, some Lilith stuff and the last two episodes all had cliffhangers

>"The Intruder" ends with a dream with Eda going, "You're the one who cursed me!"
>"Covention" ends with a villain sting as Kiki calls up Lillith and says Belos is unimpressed at not capturing Eda and Lillith promises to do better as it zooms in on her face
>"Escape of the Palisman" ends with Eda discovering her curse-stifling elixir isn't working anymore
>"Enchanting Grom Fight" ends with a mysterious letter written by "Luz" that suggests someone has been faking her identity while at the camp in the real world
>"Agony of a Witch" ends with Eda being captured and a literal 'To Be Continued' card
>"Young Blood Old Souls" ends with Belos standing in front of a half-finished portal talking about how the magic door can still work

Are you fucking high?

SU sucked because the writing and plotting of the later seasons wasn't as good. Most things bitching about lore in a show usually boil down to "I'm upset my theorycrafting was wrong." Just look at WandaVision, where there was a major segment of detractors who, rather than take issue with writing problems, were upset purely because mutants weren't introduced.

Infinity Train

That's called foreshadowing and stingers, not cliffhangers. Cliffhanger would be something like leaving the episode as one of the characters is in danger.

So change the word from "cliffhanger" to "stinger" and the point still stands.

Was your entire point really about arguing semantics?

This started with Adventure Time, Ward had a little too much fun teasing bits and pieces of lore in various shots that he was never going to follow up on because lore wasn't the point of AT (the Lich was only ever meant to be a benchmark for Finn's heroism). It was only after he left that Adventure Time really tripled down on lore, and because AT got hugely popular other showrunners started to follow suit, a trend that is going even today.

Not him, but this isn't a matter of semantics. You used an incorrect term, therefore you were wrong. Owl house does not use cliffhangers.

>Swapping out the term proves the point
>This isn't semantics though

Your average TOH fan, everybody.

Attached: 1529018379477.jpg (640x480, 46.29K)

Because it results in crap like this.

>TOH relies on too many cliffhangers to bring in viewers.
>"No it doesn't, it uses stingers."
>Oh, okay, TOH relies on too many stingers to bring in viewers.
>"Too late, you said cliffhangers so you're wrong".
Nigga, are YOU high?

>just because I was wrong doesn't mean I was wrong

You forgot the third element, later AT showrunners not giving a shit about prior developments. The problem with lore is that unless you a strong hand guiding production or a series bible that you're not deviating from it's way too easy to go off the rails.

Nigga, you're the only retard who cared about the difference between "stingers" and "cliffhangers". Everyone else in this thread knew what the user meant. You're arguing semantics because you have no actual points to make, get over it, retard.

>The problem with lore is that unless you a strong hand guiding production or a series bible that you're not deviating from it's way too easy to go off the rails.
Very true. There have been shows in the past that were very lore-heavy (Gargoyles comes to mind), but most (if not all) of the lore in those shows were planned from the get-go because competent showrunners don't just go into their narrative half-cocked and expect something interesting to spontaneously manifest midway through the shows run.

A stinger is a teaser for a future plot point and a cliffhanger is cutting off the conclusion of a current plot point, right?

>don't correct me, it sickens me

Yes

>Sorry guy, looks like you made a typo and I won this e-argument now

Yes to the latter, but a stinger doesn't have to serve a future plot point. It's just a short scene. The stinger in Rescuers Down Under, for example, concludes a story element from earlier in the film.