a34trgv2 - Tumblr blog

[a34trgv2]

Top 10 Worst Cartoon Villains

#10. The Beast (Over The Garden Wall): A series full of so much potential, Over The Garden Wall's biggest disappointment besides the world building and characters is its villain. The Beast is built up as this dark, evil spirit, when in reality he's just all bark and no bite. Whenever he's on screen, he comes off like a lesser version of the Lich from Adventure Time with lackluster abilities, a weak motivation and is defeated rather anticlimactically.

#9. Harold Smith (The Powerpuff Girls): The Powerpuff Girls has a bunch of memorable and iconic villains in their rogues gallery. Harold Smith, as well as his wife and kids, is NOT one of them. In addition to a petty motivation, he isn't at all threatening, his costume looks like it was thrown together at the last minute, and he doesn't even succeed in his plan. The only reason why the girls didn't just beat the tar out of him is because his wife wanted a perfect dinner. And no, the sequel episode that involves his family isn't much better.

#8. Hervnick Z. Snerz (Green Eggs and Ham): While Green Eggs and Ham makes for a good show for the most part, the one major critique I have is that the main villain is nothing but a pompous brat. Snerz is egotistical, whiney, lazy, and selfish, but above all that, he's just not funny or interesting. Not onces throughout the entire show does he become a villain we love to hate, but rather an annoying detour from the main plot. His backstory does nothing to make him sympathetic or interesting as it just further proves how selfish and nasty he is.

#7. Griselle Grande (Polly Pocket): This creepy old broad wants the power of Polly's locket, but what she really needs is to get a life. She's an incompetent, egotistical, and creepy woman who can't come up with the most basic of plans to get a stinking locket. Not once does Griselle's efforts get a laugh and the fact that her granddaughter, Gwen, even helps her despite being dumber than a sack of peanuts is actually pathetic.

#6. Lee, Marie, and May Kanker (Ed, Edd, n Eddy): It's no secret that the Kankers bring Ed, Edd, n Eddy down with their mere existence. In addition to ruining the Eds' scams, they also frequently make out with the Eds without consent. They're also the apotheosis to the rest of cast as they're not funny, they're not quotable, and they're not interesting. No wonder they don't have any fans.

#5. Dragon (Skunk Fu): As a big fan of dragons, I would be all giddy to watch a show where the dragon is the main villain. Unfortunately, Skunk Fu is too terribly written to make Dragon an interesting villain. In addition to having such a rushed and pathetic backstory, Dragon does nothing but sit in his cave doing nothing but bark orders at his lackies. Nothing about him screams intimidating or powerful, just pathetic.

#4. Dr. Otomo Kamikazi II (Robotboy): Some evil genius he is. Dr. Kamikazi constantly fails to capture Robotboy and what's worse is he never once thinks to make his own robot if he's so smart. He also has a weak motivation, a very exaggerated accent, and no real menace to him. He's just an embarrassing loser that's too stubborn to admit that he's not as smart as he thinks he is.

#3. Hawk Moth (Miraculous Ladybug): If this guy wants the powers of Ladybug and Cat Noir so much, why doesn't he get them himself? I'll tell you why: because he's a weak, lazy, incompetent villain! He'd rather send his Akuma butterflies to corrupt petty losers to do his dirty work and they always fail. He's just a pathetic bore of a villain that never once gets his hands dirty.

#2. Teamo Supremo's Rogues Gallery (Teamo Supremo): It's impossible to choose just one lousy villain from this stupid show, as they all have the same problem. They petty villains with lame gimmicks, 3 useless lackies, and they're not the least bit threatening. One of them is just a guy who makes fun of people and another is your typical Karen. Teamo Supremo has the worst line of villains in cartoons and it would've been Number 1 on my list, if it wasn't for...

#1. Lloyd Garmadon (Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu): ...THIS obnoxious little punk! Lloyd is the embodiment of all the previous entries. He's petty, he's stupid, he's lazy, he's egotistical, and he's such an embarrassment! All he does is bark orders to the snake peopke to commit childish crimes and as such he wastes the time of the heroes and the audience! He's such a bad villain that I could care less about his redemption and how he becomes a mainstay. All I want is for this kid to be shipped to Timbuktu and NEVER comeback!

Conclusion: These villains are so bad in their portrays, they make sitting through the show frustrating everytime they're on screen. Dishonerable mentions go to PAL from The Mitchells vs The Machines (just another vengeful A.I. in a sea full of them), Maximums I.Q. from Atomic Betty (a very generic villain in a very badly made cartoon), and Dio from JoJo's Bizarre Adventures (he's not even fun to talk about, that's how bad of a villain he is). Do you agree with my picks? What are some of your least favorite villains? Let me know down in the comments and I'll see you next time ;)

[a34trgv2]

How many shows on Apple TV+ have you seen?

4

DM me if you have more questions

[a34trgv2]

I never read the book, but thanks to the abomination that is this show, now I'm not interested in even touching it. And no, being a kid is NOT an excuse. When I was a kid, I got in trouble for following a pregnant woman with children at a library. Here's my review of Harriet The Spy -.-

[a34trgv2]

I thought this would be a surprisingly funny cartoon that not many people talked about. Boy was I wrong! And Justin Roiland's attempt at voice acting is like nails on a chalk board. Here's my review of Fish Hooks

[a34trgv2]

The Problem With Bad Adaptations/Spin-Offs

In today's entertainment landscape, there's definitely a surplus of adaptations and spin-offs of pre-existing IPs. While some are very well crafted and more than worthy additions to the franchise, others are, to put it simply, not. This post will dissect why bad adaptations and spin-offs do more harm to the IP than good and what aspiring creators can do to avoid these missteps.

If you're assuming that this post is going to point to the executives who only care about money as opposed to quality, you're sorely mistaken. Executives need to be finance and business savy so that they can keep the company running. The real root cause of an adaptation/spin-off's shortcommings falls on the shoulders of the creators. They're the ones who went ahead with the creative decisions, they're the ones that put the whole thing together, they're the one's whose name is slapped under the director or creator's credit. The executives may care more about how the project rakes in profits, but it's the creator's responsibility to make sure it's entertaining to the audience.

You know how many fans of books disregard the movie with the saying "the book was better" regardless if the movie was good or bad? Well, this saying is most predominantly used for bad adaptations because when they fail, the original book is used as evidence to support fans criticism. While changing things from the source material is a given with adaptations, the adaptation should make for an entertaining retelling of the original story with well rounded and fully developed characters, creative would building and really good acting. Films like Percy Jackson and The Olyimpians, Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day (what is up with that title being so long?!), and The Devil All The Time fail at all these essentials, and as such make for sloppy movies that don't do the books they're based on justice.

Like adaptations, spin-offs should be worthy additions to the original IP. Yet often, a spin-off is mediocre at best and absolutely terrible at worst. By haing a spin-off turn out bad, the creators inadvertently justify the doubts of naysayers who felt the spin-off was unnecessary. Planet Sheen, for example, could've been a really funny show that expanded the Jimmy Neutron universe and provide some more creative ideas. Yet because it turned out to be so unfunny and unfocused, fans of Jimmy Neutron were made correct into thinking it was unnecessary. This badly made spin-off is now a permanent stain on the legacy of the original IP and creators have no one to blame but themselves.

DreamWorks Animation has got to have the worst track record when it comes to their spin-offs and adaptations. With some notable exceptions such as She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, Dinotrux and the Dragons series, most of their shows are some of the worst cartoons ever made and do a great disservice to the original IP. Among them, Legends of Awesomeness is the worst offender and the pinnacle example of how NOT to make a spin-off. The animation is terrible, the writing is atrocious, the voice acting is very bad, and the characters are one note and annoying. The worst part about the show is Po and how he's completely out of character. Where in the movies he's a really nice guy with genuine love and respect for kung fu, the show makes him a lazy, unfunny and annoying cheat who lies and decieves his way to get what he wants. Unfortunately, DreamWorks Animation has not learned the right lessons as their recent spin-off, The Bad Guys: A Very Bad Holiday, was absolutely terrible and their new Megamind series looks, unsurprisingly, abominable.

To anyone who's tasked with making a spin-off or adaptation, here's the mistakes you need to avoid in order to make a worthy addition to the IP. Firstly, don't assume your audience is already family with the source material, because more often than not, they aren't. Second, familiarize yourself with the IP and understand why it worked in the first place and how to apply those qualities to your work while still putting your personal stamp on it. Third, don't make changes to the story or characters because you were told to by the executives or because you think it would be funny or more digestible for the audience. Before you make any changes, consult your head writer and actors and ask them what they think. Lastly, consult the producer on how to work around budgetary limitations. If you're given a set budget, don't use that as an excuse to make your work visually dull. This is especially true with animation, where you can tell they had a small budget based on how flat and weightless the visuals are. My advice when making a spin-off based on a 3D animated movie is to hire art and animation directors with impressive resumes and who can deliver quality animation even under limited budgets.

Making an adaptation/spin-off is hard, much like making any movie or TV show with an original story. That said, I think the creators of adaptations and spin-offs of established IPs have a responsibility to not only do the source material justice, but also make an entertaining product that reintroduces the IP to new audiences. When the adaptation and spin-off is mediocre or terrible, it angers fans and alienates newcomers. We could've had a whole new generation of fans of The Green Hornet by now. But because the 2011 movie staring Seth Rogan was so mediocre and underperformed financially, the IP was sent right back into obscurity with a reboot stuck in development limbo. To conclude, an adaptation/spin-off should be more than just an addition to the franchise; it should be a very good appetizer to an already great main course.

[a34trgv2]

What do you think a nine-year-old girl sounds like?

This is ridiculous, everyone knows what a 9 year old girl sounds like.

Can you just DM me for questions, whoever you are? You're eating up space on my profile.

[a34trgv2]

OPINION: Simple =/= Lazy

Whenever something is simple, it's often blanketly seen as lazy or low effort by detractors. Those who are family with my page know that I vehemently hate whenever those terms are used for movies or TV shows. I also think it's wrong to assume anything that's simple is automatically lazy. It's time we're reminded that these are vastly different terms and should not be used interchangeably, less we as a society continue to be misinformed.

We take for granted the many tools, programs, recipes, and instructions that are simple. The keyboard format in which most computers have is simple and easy to figure out. The 5 simple machines (screw, lever, pully, wheel&axel, and wedge) are basic by design. Making a simple bowl of cereal is something so easy even a child can do it. We as people have always made things simple, as far back as the caveman days. It wasn't out of laziness or lack of thought, but rather for the sake of necessity. You know before 911 was invented we had do dial a 7 digit number to call the cops or an ambulance? And this was back in the mid-20th century, where instead of the iPhone we take for granted now, we had the painfully tedious rotary phone. What's worse is if you didn't have the number memorized, you had to rely on the phone book. See how complicated all that is? Making the emergency phone number just 3 digits was so simple, yet so genius. It has saved countless lives and was a big help for police officers responding to crimes in a more timely manner. Simplicity out of necessity is what makes life less difficult than it already is.

While we like our everyday devices to be simple out of necessity, it seems to be a different matter when it comes to our entertainment. A movie or a show being simple is often seen as a negative and one that screenwriters should avoid if they wish to dazzle critics. I'm all for taking risks, taking chances, and getting messy (comment if you got that reference 😉), I don't think it's an inherent bad thing to want to tell a simple story. A story that has a clear beginning, middle, and end, where the characters start their journey at point A and end it at point be, beat the bad guy, and live happily ever after is simple, yes, but lazy? Absolutely not. What I just described to you was something that opens the door to a wide range of different possibilities, where the only limit is your imagination. This basic story structure has had variants that date back to when we told stories via shadow puppets. While the narrative is simple, that doesn't mean it leaves no room for creativity. Case in point, The Super Mario Bros. Movie. Now, I'm not some pretentious dolt who believes critics are wrong for not liking a movie when their opinions are just as valid as my on. The reception to the Super Mario Bros Movie, however, did seem to highlight a common problem with online criticism. This notion that the movie should've taken more risks and be more than just a 92 minute long advertisement for a video game franchise. I understand if a lot of critics were either bored or indifferent with the film as a whole. I can not, however, side with the notion that the movie would've been better if it was more complex. If they were to have made the movie more complex with longer scenes focusing on the characters having their own subplots or if it was about Mario and Luigi struggling financially and trying to earn enough money to pay their mother's medical bills (or something of the sort), it would take away from the other important aspects of storytelling. Aspects such as good pacing, creative world building, engaging characters interactions, clever and organic dialog, strong vocal performances, an impressive score, and dazzling visuals. Again, I understand if most critics were left cold by the film as a whole, but I don't agree with generally concensus that a complex, bold and risky script is inherently better than a straightforward and to the point script.

It's okay if one chooses the simpler option over the challenging one. Simplicity is how we, as people, are able to process information in a concise and fair manner. It's also how we get devices and recipes we take for granted every day. This also applies to the entertainment we consume. Movies and TV shows are supposed to be escapist entertainment that provides the audience with a good time. To conclude, I leave you with a quote from the late great Steve Jobs.

[a34trgv2]

Have you ever read the Big Nate comic strip or read any of the books based on it?

No

[a34trgv2]

What's wrong with Wolfboy and the Everything Factory?

It's stupidly generic

[a34trgv2]

You never told me about Wolfboy and the Everything Factory.

Not much to tell. It's an empty husk of a show.

[a34trgv2]

What Max shows have you seen lately?

I've been watching Care Bears: Unlock The Magic and Velma recently with plans to give them reviews.

[a34trgv2]

What if "Weird Al" Yankovic and Paul Simon had guest starred in Milo Murphy's Law and (along with Milo) sung Simon's hit song, "You Can Call Me Al"?

Maybe that'd be cool, idk.

Aren't you smart enough to come up with your own opinions on this stuff without asking me?

[a34trgv2]

Okay. Could you at least say who you think would win and why?

Doofinshmirtz because, as bumbling as he is, he's far more competent when he really focuses on his end goal and would put Prof. Exclamation Point in his place

[a34trgv2]

Death Battle: Dr. Doofenshmirtz vs. Professor Exclamation Point

I already have a bit of an idea who your money would go on, but I would at least like to hear a play-by-play commentary on how you think the battle would go.

Why? Why do you care so much about my opinion? I don't know you and I'm not Whiz or Boomstick. They would do a much better job analyzing stuff like this than me.

[a34trgv2]

Death Battle: Kim Possible vs. Perry the Platypus

Who would your money go on? Why?

KP because she's more skilled in martial arts and has more gadgets

[a34trgv2]

I take it you've never seen Scooby Doo: Mystery Incorporated?

I saw a couple episodes but never really got into it

[a34trgv2]

Crybaby Clown also has a lot of arsenal.

I have no idea who that is