My Experience With Just-A-Robot

 So yeah, I didn't see this coming. Just-A-Robot, a prominent commentator, has recently destroyed his reputation and career after he spoke in defense of a predator. A defense that was done apparently because he wanted to get in her pants. But a lot of you already know about that one way or another. All I could add is my personal experiences with him, more or less to highlight the general irony of what happened then compared to now.

I first met Jar when he launched his earliest or first deviantArt account. At the time I was invested in deviantArt drama and tried to get involved with ongoing incidents. It was... honestly a pretty bad time looking back, and I have no intent of ever doing it all again. Anyhow, he used to comment on most of my stuff, but I rarely interacted with him by then. Things began to pick up during the advent of drama surrounding a user by the name of PrincessElizabeth013, a Sonic artist whose issues were blown way out of proportion. The girl had temper issues and is on the autism spectrum, and a bunch of bad faith individuals sought to exploit this for their own entertainment.

Seeing a commentary on a Google chat between her and others, it was honestly terrifying if you're on the outside looking in.

Anyhow, during that drama JAR would take her side, and as this was during a time when internet toxicity was at its most raw, if you side against the majority on anything you were essentially fucked. I sided with him at first, until I caved and joined the winning team to save my own ass. But along with siding with the period's public enemy number one, JAR was accused of driving another user to an early departure from life. Nearly everyone was against him, and I had joined in driving him off the internet. After that unfortunate chapter, I just went on not knowing how bad what I did was.

So time later I would discover Just A Robot and after finding some videos of his that aligned with my views back then I started following him. Then a couple of years later, I suddenly get these comments on my old drama posts condemning me over them, over that person specifically. Well, to my absolute shock, that person would become Just a Robot. I had been outed because I had turned against him whether it was justified or not, how I went about it and doing no favors for his mental health.

If you wanna know what I did about it, I left a comment admitting what I did, would do whatever JAR suggested me to do to build some good faith, and in spite of the act still having happened, it worked out with JAR even taking it well. While expressing his thoughts on me for what I did, he also said something to the effect of, "He could've helped me grow my channel, and I backed the wrong horse"

Now, given I make content for YouTube and given his size and prominence it would make sense. But, let's go into JAR's general content, the atmosphere he contributed to. JAR is/was one of those anti-SJW/moderate grifter channels, and while he didn't claim to adhere to the one side, the content doesn't really help much. While he was able to at least explain himself beyond just "lol woke" bullshit, he was essentially walking a tight rope.

If that wasn't enough he was also associating himself with some pretty unsavory individuals, among them being resident wacko Zaid Magenta. Look at it like this, the last person associated with him that criticized him got stalked and harassed, that person was Cartoonshi. If everyone else in JAR's sphere was similar to this, what if I were to give a dissenting opinion? Would I survive in that kind of crowd?

I was never looking to get big on YouTube, and while it would've been cool to grow thanks to someone striking big, I doubt I'd have much staying power in a community like that, especially as the lid has been blown on content that even has a slight tinge of right-wing grift.

And then of course he completely ruined his career. Compared to allegations from the past drama, this time there were not only major details brought forth, but the reveal of chats between JAR and the guilty that just make him look worse. If I had taken his side back then and stuck with him, he'd probably use that as leverage to keep me on. If I sided against him and got back on when he got big, he'd also use that as leverage, maybe guilt me into taking his side because "Oh you almost drove me to self-delete long ago, you owe me this."

He said I blew my chance at getting big, but what did he do? Throw it all away on a battle he could never win. It's funny how back then I made the wrong decision, but now I managed to dodge a bullet. I'm sorry for what I've done in the past and I don't stand by it anymore, but if someone, anyone, is willing to throw their good will away out of smallness, i.e., trying to get with the accused, it says a lot about their character. Dare I say JAR came out about his past at a time where he knew his influence was strong and therefore you'd be a fool to question it.

JAR has made it a point he has managed to beat his opponents, whether that played a part in some seriously poor judgement may be clear here. He may still post content, he may apologize, who knows?

But that said, this was my piece on the matter, I'm one of the few individuals who knew JAR way before he became famous, recalling some early drama and being one of the few old heads either willing to discuss it or be around to. He's still alive, spoke his side of drama long ago, I had done the same, and now I went into this while the odds are currently well against him.

Revisiting The Secret of NIMH 2

 A long time ago I did a review of The Secret of NIHM 2. In that review, I essentially echoed the complains others had over the film, many, many others. Called it a cash grab, fan fiction, hits harder when time after you see others basically saying the same thing and you feel partially responsible.

Of all the things to hold Nostalgia Critic accountable for is influencing general perception of movies for years to come, whether he was the loudest voice at the time or did it earlier than others where traction would be had by that time. The Secret of NIMH 2 is among his many casualties and they're still trying to recover, held back only by a number of washouts who forgot what year it was. Wanna know what got me to review this movie? A Nostalgia Critic type review that was released on July 24th... 2024. Yikes.

I was on the fence when it came to NIMH 2, but then I saw a video created by my good buddy Timey that defended the film, and credibly as well, and if you ask me you should check her video out first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrtxMJQoiNA

Now, for the movie in general, is it really as bad as people claim it to be? To that it's a resounding... sorta. There are some issues with this movie, but half the time people focus on less important things or just go solely by its connection to the first NIMH alone, if not regurgitating everything Nostalgia Critic said just differently enough to not make anyone side-eye.

I'm just saying, if Bobsheaux were to do a review of this movie, I imagine him just copying Nostalgia Critic's points questioning logic where it doesn't need to be questioned, use a rat puppet in his place and maybe charge two dollars just to watch it. He can't possibly be that destitute.

Whatever I may say about this movie, while it's not great, it's not the worst movie ever, not even close to being the worst sequel, a guilty pleasure at the most, and if you want an idea to what that's like for me, here's a list of my personal guilty pleasures: https://letterboxd.com/channeleven/list/guilty-pleasures/

But shameless plug aside, there's no better place to start than the beginning... of the film... 's inception.

Background

The Secret of NIMH 2 came out during a period where video/DVD rentals/purchases were on a continual rise. Companies like Disney would begin putting out sequels for the sell-through market in order to capitalize on the success of their properties. Lacking the same budget as the movies they followed (why put in extra effort for the home video market in the event ticket sales outdo rental payments, and the whole shebang behind shares?

While a lot of these sell-through movies aren't great, at best don't have the same staying power as their theatrical contemporaries, I mean companies weren't making fine art here, they were out making a profit, a necessary evil for them, you'd be a fool to expect anything more. But you don't have to always see it that way, if these movies made up your childhood or you can look past the obvious dips and enjoy a movie for what it is, more power to you, I'd probably relate depending on what movie's on the table anyhow.

Back on topic, The Secret of NIMH, the first, its success cannot be understated. Breaking new ground when it comes to storytelling and having gorgeous animation to boot, I can see why a lot of people loved that movie, and MGM would feel the same to the point they would try to continue it in some way, but with conservative spending.

The Secret of NIMH 2 was the second to last movie put out by MGM's animation division, one of four to be exact. MGM Animation originally produced a sing-a-long series of tapes, along with a handful of cartoons based on IPs they owned at the time. But regarding the movies, they first began with Babes in Toyland, which I only saw the latter half of and became one of many films that I could never figure out until recently.

But I swear that Roger Corman took the design of Humpty Dumpty for Aladdin and the Adventure of All Time.

This was followed with An All Dogs Christmas Carol which is based more on the All Dogs television series, something that Bobsheaux never even touched upon in the slightest, at least as far as I know. Anyway, that and NIMH 2 came out the same year before ending with a mousified Tom Sawyer in 2000.

NIMH 2 was directed by Dick Sebast. Sebast primarly did work as an animator for Disney productions like The Rescuers and Winnie the Pooh, later doing work for various Hanna-Barbera and Ruby Spears cartoons among other small roles. On one hand, he was involved with X-Men Evolution and even directed nine episodes of Batman: The Animated Series, those that at the very least aren't considered to be on the lower end. But on the other hand he is also somewhat attached to shows and movies I'm not particularly fond of, here's looking at you Sonic SatAM and Ultimate Avengers. The last thing he's credited to is the DreamWorks movie Home, where he was not credited, but chances are he doesn't mind that.

The film's story is credited to three people. Sam Graham and Chris Hubbell appear to be a writing team, sharing nearly the exact same credits. They had contributed in some capacity to the writing of films like Oliver and Company and The Little Mermaid, they wrote a later season episode of the Beetlejuice cartoon, four for The Real Adventures of Johnny Quest and wrote the teleplay for Night of the Twisters. But like Sebast they also have a BTAS connection, writing for one episode of that series, you wanna know what it was? You ready?

I've Got Batman in my Basement

Yes, what is generally agreed upon to be the worst BTAS episode of all time, you have them to thank for that.

But what about the third person? Jymn Magon is attached to quite a bit, but for more notable ones he was tied to Quack Pack, a product of its time at best, and was also attached to cartoons produced at DiC entertainment's French division Les Studios Tex, handling The Wacky World of Tex Avery, hated as that show is and serving as the headwritter for Archie's Weird Mysteries, a show I thought was cool, but then realized it's an E/I show using a cool premise to trick people into learning things. As far as other movies go he wrote Casper: A Spirited Beginning and Casper Meets Wendy, all two of those live-action Casper TV movies, An All Dogs Christmas Carol, I mean granted he did the story and part of the screenplay for A Goofy Movie, but you wanna know what else he was involved in?

Titanic: The Legend Goes On

Yet another punching bag of many years ago, he served as a consultant on it just for the record. If you want my opinion on the film there's an uncut version that, while not a great movie at least is better held together than the more commonly spread cut version.

As far as the cast goes it's a who's who of celebrities who were falling or fell off long ago and are looking for some easy money. Among them being William H. Macy, Ralph Macchio, Harvey Korman, Eric Idle, and we do get two returning actors, Dom DeLuise who was clearly never picky when it came to movie deals, and Arthur Malet in his final role... before he would retire and die in 2013.

I also wanna single out Meshach Taylor as I used to watch Designing Women reruns, but you may recognize him Mr. Wright from Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide. And speaking of Nickelodeon actors, the second, or third if you count the 1994 pilot Arnold Shortman, Phillip Van Dyke was also in this. Also Hynden Walch, who you may recognize as Penny Sanchez from ChalkZone... and nothing else. But something tells me her presence here and what she became known for later on had given her some slack relating to who she played. Lastly, it's important to note that the voice of Mrs. Brisby, Elizabeth Hartman, had passed away under very dark circumstances. She was played by Debi Mae West in the film, and she is perhaps best known for playing Meryl in Metal Gear Solid, and she does a decent job in this movie for whatever it's worth.

If it wasn't obvious before, Don Bluth had no involvement in this movie, but whether he was on or not wouldn't affect the quality of the movie because throughout the 90s he had begun to lose his touch. You may argue Anastasia was an outlier among his more mediocre movies, and that MGM greenlit this movie because the Bluth name was more or less redeemed for a time, but that's a stretch. You already know how this movie turned out, so I'm not gonna go into the impact, it's a byproduct of trying to be like the biggest reviewer out there and share his opinions on movies, and it's never going to stop. I'm delaying the inevitable by rambling on and on about behind the scenes stuff, I should stop.

Okay, the movie, finally

As something different, I'm gonna do my best to try and explain the issues people have with the movie, it may not work, but it's different.

NIMH 2 would center on Timmy, a character who served a purpose in the first movie, but was otherwise relegated as part of a goal had by Mrs. Brisby to help him, while contending with the rot... whatever the first movie was about.

The movie would begin with a recap of the first, and this is where red flags are raised for most people, as it presents Mrs. Brisby's husband Johnathan as the main hero. As much as I'd love to bitch in the name of a cartoon rat, I think I know what they're going for here. Mrs. Brisby is the main player in the rest of the first NIMH movie yes, but Johnathan Brisby was the one who helped free the rats from NIMH, giving them the means, the will, to start their own civilization, he may've even lent a hand in the creation of Thorn Valley.

You may say Mrs. Brisby was also instrumental in helping Thorn Valley, I mean you may be right, but don't act like Johnathan had no influence either, if anything I give the movie props for trying to provide extra focus to the rest of the Brisby family, bar certain stretches. And in the case of Timmy, who spent the entire first movie sick, it's a good way to better flesh him out, what more is there to him?

Now, his selection as the rats' golden boy is kinda forced, I'll give you that, and some claim it should've been Martin in the lead, as Don Bluth also would've suggested, but I also see what they're trying to do here. Timmy is just coming into life with a greater purpose, and he feels he isn't ready for it. Martin who had more experience feels he is better suited for what's in store for Timmy, which would be a setup for what happens later in the movie.

As far as him being the chosen one, I mean I get citizens of Thorn Valley expressing optimism and fate for the next in line in the Brisbys thanks to their help. A little overblown, sure, but these reviewers going on and on about how Mrs. Brisby is a god they prey to you'd think they'd see something of her in Timmy. That would explain that celebration at the start of his arrival.

As for the cautious nature of Mr. Ages, he has faith in Timmy, but wants him to work to earn his reputation, to not just base himself solely on the achievements of his family alone, to have the experience and discipline to back it up. You don't become a hero in a day, you gotta work your way up. At least that's what I feel like they're going for.

Along with Timmy there's also Jenny, who is considered to be one of the film's few objective positives. She has enough personality and tact so she wouldn't feel out of place, as well as some importance to the plot. She had escaped NIMH and would inform Thorn Valley's higher ups about what's currently happening. For when they refuse to act on it and for those who say they should throw caution into the wind and do it... you wouldn't last one presidency, if conflict is the first thing. Yes it's ideal to help, but as the first movie shows, there will be bodycounts, and the rats escaped NIMH to live.

Oh but, building up Timmy. Perhaps he wasn't ready yet and his training amounts to protecting Thorn Valley from outside dangers, and that them going back to NIMH may lead to NIMH finding their way to Thorn Valley.

Up to this point I've ignored the musical aspects, and yeah... the songs are pretty bad. On paper they're decent, but in practice... you know what, no, I'd still take off-key singing over the autotune or swapped voice they used in The Loud House Movie. It seems like the songs are used just to help bolster the length, or because that's what kids were into, even if it doesn't fit in the context or tone of the film that came before.

I mean say what you will about Ferngully 2, at least it began as a musical of sorts.

Now as for Jeremy who is seen helping to scam forrest animals by pretending to be the Great Owl, I dunno, I guess they had to have him do something and justify him being within reasonable distance so he could rejoin Timmy and Jenny. So basically plot convenience, guess they backed themselves into a corner with that.

Getting to NIMH, remember how Martin acted earlier on? And how even more we were led on to believing one particular scientist was the big bad? It's a good ol' bait and switch, sorta. Anyway blah blah blah, evil Martin, agreement, blah blah. The rest of Thorn Valley would arrive, presumably realizing Timmy and Jenny were gone they would set out to find them and then they were like, fuck it, we're here, we may as well see this through, fruitless to go back now.

Alright let's talk about this. Martin was jealous that he was not considered to be sent to Thorn Valley, early on it was shown he knew where it was, hence how he could get out there. One can assume he traveled to NIMH to prove himself by stopping them, and either he got caught and experimented on, or his selfish desires led him to become corrupted.

Martin being the bad guy actually has more weight than people want you to believe. It plays a part in Timmy's character where he cares deeply for his family, Martin especially, so to realize the one behind all of this was his own brother, it hits hard. Compared to it just being a generic scientist that few of them know beyond some aspects, it gives this film one above sequels/d2v movies by representing an emotional connection, you don't get that as often, and while that is offset by a very goofy song it's still there.

It also says a lot in regard to Timmy's character, where he would be willing to help his brother even in spite of his corruption, "I have my brother back!". For his bravery, proving himself and potentially destroying NIMH for good, he is given a statue alongside his father for helping to bring the rats to where they are now, literally and figuratively.

Of course some of you may say "Wait a minute where the fuck is Mrs. Brisby's statue for the millionth time!?"

Alright I'm gonna be real, I'm aware of what she has done in the movie, benefit of the doubt to naysayers that maybe she did enough to warrant one. Maybe it's an oversight, maybe the extent of what she did was big but not statue big, she wasn't trying to prove herself against Johnathan Brisby, she was just trying to help her family and those close to her and faced her own journey to do so. I don't know, I really don't know, but there's a reason somewhere, I can feel it.

Animation

The animation in this movie is about what you'd expect for a straight-to-video film, not amazing but above average compared to others like it, and those others typically came out in the 2000s whereas this came out in 1998. It's not bad, but not mind-blowing and people would turn the other cheek given this is riding off of a movie best known for its animation.

Final Thoughts

A lot of people really hate this movie, and for a time I did too and I made a review to that effect. But the fact that even to this day people are still complaining about this movie and bringing nothing new most of the time it comes down to the same thing... it's getting old, and maybe this movie isn't as bad as Nostalgia Critic made it out to be.

The Nostalgia Critic had a negative impact on movie reviews, you can owe the reputations of certain films to him. For instance Garbage Pail Kids was more relatively obscure until he did a review and got more people to talk about it. The same effect occurred here as well evidentially as few could do anything more than just echo what Nostalgia Critic said in the name of a movie, of all things.

Once you take that away, you're left with a movie that, yes, isn't great but is far from the worst movie of all time, let alone one of the worst sequels. I'm being blunt here, because after seeing the same reviews multiple times and looking more into the movie, things just don't add up. Is this really that bad, or are we just regurgitating what we heard before with no variation? Only credit I can give to this is that most of the time they don't throw Don Bluth into the discussion, and since this movie came out as he was still alive there goes that go-to.

There's more to a movie than what you hear from the reviewer of the week, and people need to have the confidence to go against the grain if there is something that is getting missed. High risk, high reward.

The Worst Green Acres Character

 Thanks to reruns on MeTV, I was able to check out the entirety of Green Acres. For me, the show began as a childhood oddity back when TV Land reran the show. Eb's Radio Contest and The Special Delivery Letter were the two episodes I saw back then, and back then the logo enthusiast in me gravitated toward the fact that extant prints of Green Acres made use of 80s prints distributed by Orion after they acquired Filmways, those still used even to this day.

Of course I was like, what, a kid back then, and when it came to vintage sitcoms and I never got to see the nuances within them. I figured back then that sitcoms were rigid, void of quirkiness, silliness, and I had to have grown up back then to accept it. But ever since I began watching networks like Antenna TV and MeTV, I actually got lost in the shows they reran and I realized, even in the 50s, shows were quirky, silly, definitely behind the times these days, but there's a comforting charm in them.

In the case of Green Acres, the show can be considered the grandfather to shows like Ned's Declassified: School Survival Guide and Big Time Rush, that is a live action cartoon, well, not the sole grandfather as The Three Stooges exist, but in terms of shows made for television you can see the parallels.

Green Acres was part of Filmways' line of rural-themed sitcoms, including Petticoat Junction and The Beverly Hillbillies, even to the point they shared the same universe. To wit, one character Sam Drucker previously appeared on Petticoat Junction. Add expanded universe to the list. One thing I love about the show is that along with being a live action cartoon in some respects and pulling it off, it also does a hell of a job with its fourth wall gags. Even if I tend to identify more with Oliver Wendell Douglass who tends to get the short end most of the time, the show has charm that keeps me tuning in. The only thing that killed the show was CBS pushing back against rural programs, and thus the last two episodes more or less served as backdoor pilots for shows that went nowhere. There was a movie that came out in the 90s that served as something of a closer, but I doubt I'll get to see it anytime soon, lest MeTV plans to for an anniversary special, so how about it?

Having seen every episode at least once, it got me thinking, who was the worst character on the show? Way I see it, every character, while one note, serves their roles well, they have a purpose and can keep themselves fresh every week, well maybe not week but-

Anyway, having had the chance to absorb each character and their role, I was able to boil it all down to one character. Roy Trundell, or Mr. Wheeler, whatever the hell he's called.

Roy in some respects can be considered a foil to Oliver. Roy is a more established farmer and thus some comedic potential could be sourced from a man with experience dunking on Oliver's lack thereof, a Holden Caulfield (Family Guy character not Catcher in the Rye character) type character that contrasts with the other residents that tolerate Oliver. He doesn't even necessarily need to be accepted by the others, and some comedy could come with his complaints over Oliver's lack of skill not being taken seriously, or Oliver being favored more than him, and even Roy being incompetent himself, just better at hiding it. Perhaps there could even be a hint of tragedy with him, given all he has for connections is his mom, that his attitude prevented him from making friends and thus he resigns himself to his work. Even deeper, Roy could serve as a hidden warning that Oliver's life could be reduced to loneliness and bitterness, and goes to show that Lisa Douglas is essential to Oliver maintaining some sanity and humanity, through all the sheer craziness that plagues Hooterville, he still has the will to face the day and has some people on his side, in their own crazy ways.

And I say that because we barely get that here. Roy became prominent in the show's third season as the former president of the Hooterville Telephone Company, a feud forming between him and Oliver there and any meaningful interactions being reduced to that ongoing plot thread, followed by a few brief appearances in later episodes. The problem there is that said appearances can be taken out with very little consequence, beyond a lost of a few minutes.

My point is that Roy adds nothing beyond being a nuisance at worst, with a hidden subtext at best. Some may argue that Oliver needed a foil of sorts to justify himself. When it comes to the Green Acres cast and their interactions with fish out of water Oliver, the relationship is ambivalent at worst and cordial at best, as far as angatonistic relationships con artist Mr. Haney makes up the gambit, but conflicts are best handled by either outside forces or Oliver finding himself in the center of whatever mischief the other Hooterville residents are up to. You'd begin to wonder why would Oliver need an antagonist to boost off of when the world seems like it's out to get him, therefore making Roy useless.

And something tells me the staff felt the same because after a scant few appearances after the telephone company plot, Roy disappeared, and when he came back for the show's final season he was given a different name but was the same character. I don't know why that was the case, because it seems the same staff was involved with the show from its start through to its end. Mr. Wheeler can be considered a soft reboot of Roy Trundell, becoming the father of a love interest to farmhand Eb, but not only having the same issues as Roy, but them becoming far worse.

The last we see of Wheeler was an unpleasant interaction regarding Eb pinning one of Haney's engagement plots on Oliver. You'd think both men would bond over Eb's embellishments and mischief, I mean if we're not calling him Roy why not try to put a little extra into redoing his character? He started unpleasant and ended worse so, all I know about him is that he is a farmer that hates Oliver's guts, and probably not for the same reasons by season six that he did in the previous ones.

If Roy, Wheeler, whoever, were to work, here's my idea. Why not have him be unpopular with the rest of Hooterville, nobody who has a sounder mind thinks highly of him and passively shuts him down. When Oliver comes around he finally has someone to pass the hate onto and we can see how both of their standings mesh. Build on the contrast between either, perhaps have Roy react more violently to Hank Kimball's confusion or something.

I can laugh at Hank's confusion, Haney's scheming, Eb's mischief, Ralph's lust, stuff like that, but everytime I see Roy/Wheeler it just feels unpleasant, worse so that he just isn't funny enough to have his presence justified. If Eb wasn't seeking to get engaged I question of Roy would've even been brought back at all, like he was only there to add a layer of conflict to the Darlene plot, and even then it felt forced.

The only way this could be justified is if we can see him as part of the resolution, perhaps have Roy be in the center of Eb's embellishments and get a taste of the worst Oliver deals with at the end of most episodes, something that gives an idea why the guy is so bitter. Some may bring up his more friendly behavior to Lisa, but everybody's friendly to Lisa, well, not everybody she owes that guy a new coffee pot. If he expressed the same disdain to Lisa he does to Oliver, I can live with him just being a bitter old man who hates everything around him, and there is potential in that. It could be something that could unite Oliver and Eb to a similar goal, as they basically share a similar enemy. Eb wants to get married to Darlene and Oliver would do whatever to spite Roy/Wheeler, and in a send-off have him go through a bad ending that sees him on the same end as Oliver most of the time... then when they're out of earshot Oliver would remind Eb that he's not his father, just to get cut off by Lisa saying something to the contrary.

For other Green Acres characters, they're limited but it can lend well to brief appearances with little necessity. Viewers get the gist of them and can leave well enough alone with whatever traits are present. As stated before Roy does not have that kind of justification, and it shows how episodes are able to carry on without him. As far as nuisances, other characters can pull that role off better, as far as antagonists other characters can do the job better than him. I got to see a majority of Roy/Wheeler, he started unpleasant and ended unpleasant, and it says a lot that the show could carry on fine without him. Roy is the worst because he's expendable, and beyond plots he has no impact beyond being a rude presence, one that was unneeded in hindsight.

Green Acres is a classic show, but Robert Foulk was definitely the weakest link.

First Impressions: The Wild Robot

 So recently I went to see Inside Out 2 in theaters. Though I'm not the biggest Pixar fan, it turned out to be a great movie, even better that it didn't take any cues from shit like Turning Red. It was through the previews that I got to see a trailer for an upcoming DreamWorks movie, and what did I think? It's so bad it compelled me to write this.

When it comes to DreamWorks, their animated movies slapped back in the day, and there were some genuinely good modern DreamWorks flicks as well don't get it twisted, but those were a bit more far and in between. It really feels like the company is trying to play it safe nowadays, going for what can attract ticket goers and trying to be as appealing as possible, either that or it goes down to poor decision making, Doom Syndicate anyone?

But don't get it twisted, I'm a bit more open minded when it comes to lesser DreamWorks movies, I like Antz for its shortcomings, even though now I get the hangup people had with Shrek the Third I still enjoyed it the few times I've seen it, I enjoyed Shark Tale and that didn't change with my most recent watch of it, and I'm among the few that actually enjoyed Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken, whether it be because it took aesthetics present in Turning Red and Luca and made it, well, easier on the eyes. That aside, though it has a generic plot it managed to make it work. At best it's a nice little time killer that won't get on your nerves, though I'd go as far as to claim that in spite of its generic framework, what made it work for me was that it didn't take itself as seriously, or imply as much, hint hint.

Now look, I get it, not everything has to be 100% original, all unique ideas are composites of existing ones, altered according to the visionary behind it, if that makes sense. I can forgive this if the thing isn't trying to act like it's more than it is, that's why I can approach animated sitcoms and not fly off the handle. But if you take yourself seriously, and you have an audience that has your back no matter what, some level of scrutiny needs to be held to determine if the standard is met.

The Movie Itself

So, based on the trailer alone, The Wild Robot is essentially WALL_E meets the Planet of the Apes reboot series. On the latter it's a science fiction series that does away with the human race, whether as a whole or the majority, sorta like a majority of cautionary sci-fi tales out there, and one that takes itself very seriously. As for the former, while using Robots as a point of comparison seems more apt, WALL-E also predominately focuses on a world rendered uninhabitable per, heh, cautionary tale no matter how in the background it is. Also nature vs technology, the evils of the latter.

If there was any genre that fell victim to cliches and repetition, science-fiction is among the worst offenders. At least comedy is subjective, whereas most sci-fi productions, the more serious ones mind you, are about as varied as the average Kyle Carrozza production, that is, little if at all. The Wild Robot looks like it's falling into a similar trap, whether the trailer revealed the key things or gave a certain impression. But it's not just tropes associated with a genre, even the main characters seem familiar, from an optimistic lead (the robot), and even a snarky supporting character (the fox). Either I got the gist of them, or the trailer did a terrible job providing enough details to who they are and why I should care.

That aside, what gets me is the whiplash between tones. It first begins with a robot trying to raise a baby bird, duck, the exact species escapes me at the moment), making it seem like a comedy with some potential drama. Then it snaps into the robot becoming feral and turning against her own kind. See the difference? In this case, pick one or the other.

If I were to suggest how to do the latter, have the robot be abandoned in... wherever the hell this takes place and grow picking up feral traits. And have another robot try and bring them back to civilization while learning about the root behind their travel, for mal intent which they would soon turn against. Fight generic with generic.

The problem with this, along with DreamWorks playing it safe with a lot of its movies these days, is that chances are you can figure out how the movie's gonna play out, not just based on the trailer showing too much, but applying what you saw in other films like it before, and if you can do that and it turns out to work, it would show just how weak the story really is. And it's been the thing with most DreamWorks movies as well, like Monsters Vs. Aliens. Hell, even Shrek, which put DreamWorks on the map.

Will the robot stick with the animals and live happily ever after? Will she and nature triumph over technology for the millionth time? Will the jokes be on the nose and easy to predict? Will Ruby Gillman get better with time? I think the only way this movie could win me over is if the message is delivered on the flip side, where nature is revealed to be the true bad guy all along, we grew attached, only to be hit with a twist that we'd never see coming. But given how straight most DreamWorks movies are played these days I have a feeling that mantra is gonna apply to this movie.

Even then the entire premise seems stupid. It's a typical feral human story, but there's a robot in it. Real original. At least krakens are not as commonly used. What could this movie bring new to the table? Why would they put in the most familiar tropes at the forefront when promoting their movie? Was this a bottom drawer script that they wanted to get through so it would be out of their hair? Do people still care about How to Train Your Dragon, a selling point on the trailer?

I know I'm being hyperbolic, but either this movie has little to say for itself, takes itself too seriously where it isn't necessary, or DreamWorks were not putting their best foot forward when it came to enticing viewers. I don't even want to watch this movie on general principle, I'm not gonna hate watch, and since I'm not interested in seeing the movie, you're more than welcome to spoil it, just so I can see if my predictions hold true or not.

It's funny how I came into this movie while going to see a screening of a Pixar film.

The Willies: Live Review

I'm not gonna beat around the bush. Following the release of Quiet on Set, it put Nickelodeon in more of a negative light than anyone thought possible. While confirming Dan Schneider's degeneracy, and indirectly giving Drake Bell some vindication, we also got a little more info on another Nickelodeon crook, Brian Peck, and the outpour of info was so staggering he actually got a Wikipedia article, which is what led me to this.

Some may wonder how someone like Brian Peck was able to not only get work, but the support of multiple celebrities in Hollywood after he was brought down in 2003, while also getting work time after? On the latter I'd assume nobody bothered to give him a background check, or assumed that if he wasn't directly on set it would have some legal clearance. But on the former, let's go into some background. Peck has been involved since the mid-80s, I'd assume he was a personable guy and the reason people defended him was because, well, nobody would assume someone so allegedly kind would do something so foul.

Of course, beyond interactions behind closed doors, it was hard to pick up on disturbing behaviors as Peck for the most part just popped up in small roles in places you'd never expect. To hell with Pickle Boy, you can find him in cameos for the first two X-Men movies (directed by an outed pedo even), he even had a voice role in the first Jak and Daxter game, the Gambler mind you. And his apparently friendly aura even extended to serial killers, why else would he get a signed painting from John Wayne Gacy, and mind you it's pen pals.

Compared to someone like Victor Salva, whose degeneracy was practically telegraphed in a majority of his films and hinted at in his first movie, who managed to maintain some presence in Hollywood and support from a big name like Francis Ford Coppola, Peck was the kind of guy who just hung out in the background, acting only when the cameras were off. If he directed a movie, would we get a big hint to his misdeeds? Well now there's a chance to answer.

Movie Background

The Willies was put out on video in 1990. It's a low budget horror anthology film that managed to land some fairly big names, no doubt owed to Peck establishing connections. This movie also has Nickelodeon connections. Kathleen Freeman played Mrs. Gordon in As Told by Ginger, Kimmy Robertson played a character in the first season of Drake and Josh, and this movie had Michael Bower, pre Salute your Shorts, and also someone who had a close encounter with Peck, apparently Peck insisted he be in the bathroom with Bower as he cleaned himself off of worms from a previous scene.

So yeah, any chance of separating the art from the artist is null and void, but I'll give Peck this much, at least he didn't show a scene of Bower walking in nothing but pajama bottoms even showing more than we'd ever want to see, like Salva.

But with that said, let's see if any signs were present even back then.

The Movie

The framing device centers on a group of kids telling campfire stories. Takes me back to when I watched 2001's Campfire Stories, and while that film helped make It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia possible by letting two of its lead actors meet for the first time, I question what good this movie did for its actors.

It starts with friends, or brothers, bickering while trying to light a campfire, or in this case, turn on a lantern. I guess Peck is trying to make this scene come off as naturally as possible, but it just drags on and on. If you can cut out dialog and it would be of no consequence to the story then that's not good.

One thing that's kinda interesting about this movie is that it foregoes the three story format most anthology movies have. In this, it's two full stories, mixed with three short ones. Certainly different, but do they work? From what I could gather most of these stories are framed like urban legends, even being based on existing ones and serving as dramatizations. The first one deals with a woman finding a dead rat in her fried chicken, which I couldn't find any links to incidents like it from back then, but similar situations have happened.

The movie appears to be a horror comedy, which means it may not take itself as seriously as others, or just play to the sensibilities of the period. I do have a stomach for some cheesy flicks, others don't.

The next story centers on a man who dies while riding a haunted house attraction. I'd point out how it seems like an underserved fate, or the fact that he hasn't gone on with the expectation of it being not scary, but if this is based on an urban legend. At the very least the old man's commentary is funny in a morbid way. I will point out that in one scene where a woman had her throat slit, the blood coming from the laceration was green. I saw a review of 2002's Max Magician and the Legend of the Rings, another low budget direct-to-video flick that also had green blood.

There was also a story involving a woman who tried to dry off her dog by putting it in the microwave, which is actually a confirmed urban legend, confirmed as in it was discussed. The copy I'm watching had the scene cut out, but you can find it on YouTube. Best way I could describe it is good intentions, a small dog and a microwave don't mix, I think some animal activists would've had a stroke seeing it, and at the very least the payoff was well timed.

But now let's go on to the fuller stories, right after the opening credits which occur about ten minutes in, two included if the microwave segment was included on the print I'm watching.

Keeping with the urban legend motif, and making me want to watch Urban Legends, the 1998 movie, these tales are based on second hand knowledge, it happened to a friend of a friend of theirs, see if you can catch that reference. The first one deals with a bullied boy in Greeley, the exact opposite of Hawaii, I mean they say Greeley, but it may be Connecticut, it's too New Englandy to be Colorado, not helping we needed to be given a grand tour before we even see who the focus is gonna be.

Anyway, focus, and three bullies, how long are they gonna last? But before then, I have to put up with some mediocre kid actors. I'd say these bullying scenes give me Dhar Mann vibes, but I don't think many of you know what I'm talking about. While they'll win no awards in acting, they put more effort into hanging the boy, Danny, in the air, and to his rescue is the school janitor. About the only suspicious thing I can pick out of this is the idea that Peck did the prop work for that scene, close contact, you hopefully get the idea. There's also the janitor, custodian, whatever, insistence that he help Danny out, but that's actually integral to the plot.

Which is good to know because why else place so much focus janistodian unless you just want to pad shit out? Before we get to the scares, it seems like we're just trying to hate the bullies and a teacher, a keen eye would notice these characters would become casualties. Danny would excuse himself to the bathroom, and the ball gets rolling when he sees a giant monster in one of the stalls, note how the monster doesn't chase after him in a subtle clue.

Anyhow, our first casualty is the teacher, who until then, at least she's better than the other Ms. Zorski, As Told by Ginger, only bringing this up since Kathleen Freeman was in that and this.

To add onto the twist, when Danny discovers the school cleaner's body, it's packed away neatly in the closet, head severed from body, no struggle. But back to the teacher, she would go to the bathroom and get into a rant, which is a fancy way of saying she's about to die. She does, but at least she tries to put up a fight, though she would've been better off running.

You can get the idea that the bullies go through the same thing, only this time Danny plays accessory to murder as he knocks down a prop drinking fountain, the dumbest thing I've seen in the movie so far. Also I'd like to point out an earlier scene, and one I'm getting to, showed kids wetting themselves. Take of that what you will, and I only bring it up because, remember, Brian Peck.

It ends with what I assume to be a cameo, and confirmation that cleaning dude is in fact the monster, and is carrying out his deeds at a new school.

The twist was somewhat obvious if you paid close enough attention, and the idea of a grown man killing children to protect others can't be taken seriously if it was directed by- well you get the picture. Only way this could be worse is if Danny's actor was also a victim.

One last thing to bring up is that the janitor is played by James Karen. I don't know if playing a monster in a Brian Peck movie is a lower point than playing a klansman,  The Jeffersons.

Anyhow, me bringing up Peck may not stop anytime soon, because the next story has Michael Bower, and I want to see how strong the warning signs are here.

The next story centers on an unpleasant boy who likes to torture flies. I mean sure, I kill them and they are unpleasant but damn, must be going through something fierce. Gordy encounters a farmer/scientist, and the latter is bound to provide something that would seal his fate, but not if Gordy tries to steal it first, it being some manure. I assume to get something foul enough to attract flies, and we know the manure is not your average manure, given the science junk we see inside. Seems like this isn't even a first time offense, as he's on a full name basis with the farmer.

Compared to Danny in the previous story, we're learning more about Gordy here, I mean did we need to know he had asthma? Let's see if that proves to be important. To its credit, in a scene where Gordy plays with a cat, it seems needless, but it actually has a payoff and establishes how rotten he is, so rotten something bad is bound to happen to him.

The next scene hangs for a while as Gordy puts flies he caught into a jar. About the only thing that caught me off guard was what looked like a bunch of stray hairs climbing up the wall to the far right. Unless there was a greater point to this, all I have to say to this scene is that it leaves a very dark implication, you can figure.

If it wasn't obvious Gordy was mistreating flies, the next scene focuses on him poisoning them using the fumes from liquid nail remover, but then again that's not clear as next he goes on to study them, no wait, he's removing their wings for a collection, wait again, he's putting them in a tank filled with chewed gum and an eaten lolipop.

Okay, if I had to share my biggest problem with this story is that it doesn't firmly establish the tone. Is he fascinated or into torturing flies, whether intentionally or not? Of course there's also the matter of the music, where certain tracks begin out of nowhere, worst offender being here where it cuts from a somber piano tune to a war theme.

But now I have a better picture, he's taking flies, removing their wings, and using them as pieces for models. I guess if he just kills flies it would've been too easy, especially since Gordy has dysfunctional parents. Points for subverting expectations, but why the hell did it have to happen in a film helmed by someone so, ahem, upstanding.

If you needed a good reason to why Gordy stole from the farmer, the next scene confirms that the manure is genetically engineered, and probably has a good enough scent to attract flies hence him stealing it, otherwise why bother? Also, take a peek at the callsigns to a news station, KORN. And Korn didn't get the idea for their name from this movie, just for the record, the story behind that is far more dirty.

After a decent amount of foreshadowing, complete with Brian Peck himself as a newscaster, near someone older than him, granted, we get a bit more as Gordy's parents are worn to the bone with his interests. I don't know whether to call it projection, paranoia from the older generation, or a hit close to home just because you're not with it, but this feels different now compared to then. Later we get cameos from Tracey Gold and Kirk Cameron of Growing Pains, and I just want to say, of all the people who wrote letters to the court on behalf of leniency toward Peck, at the very least Kirk Cameron wasn't among them, guy may be a bit touched in the head but he's consistent at least.

I'd like to make a comparison to Victor Salva. Salva's Clownhouse and this featured a scene that had a boy in their pajamas. While Salva just had Nathan Forrest Winters in bottoms, at the very least Peck had Michael Bower fully covered here, and I bring it up because remember, Bower was a victim, and I'm looking for warning signs.

Anyhow, dream sequence. While it is made somewhat obvious it is one, I can forgive it if it's executed well, but it's as if Peck couldn't decide where it wanted to end. A good opportunity would've come after the Growing Pains cameo, but then it gets wacky as the farmer addresses Gordy, complete with ham. To be fair this isn't where the dream ends, as Gordy finds his body in a refrigerator surrounded by flies. I'd make a comparison to Emerald Twilight, but that came long after.

The nightmare loses its punch quite easily because it's dragged out. If this plays into the comedy aspect of horror comedy, I ain't laughing, and I sure as hell ain't scared. But oh no, that was one of two nightmares. Gordy finds worms in his inhaler, and his bed. At the very least there was no over the top music, so it's at least a notch above the first nightmare for not dragging out.

Speaking of drag, we gotta see Gordy go through more of his day to day routines, like lunch. He sits at a girls' table, and hey they didn't leave or tell him to leave. I'm counting on Gordy to either get framed, or stick to his own dirty tricks, and look at that it's the latter, he's not gonna make it unscathed at the end.

Before anything else, I found a scene were dialog was clearly ADRed in, nobody's mouths are moving. Almost as suspiscious as Spivey suddenly welcoming strangers to his farm. Hmm, maybe that first nightmare was a telepathic communication, it certainly didn't do anything to reform Gordy. For some extra props Spivey isn't being over the top when it comes to what I assume would be payback, at least not that much, until he gives Gordy a jar of his manure, made especially for him.

Sudden change of heart, manure built like no other, giving it to a little hellion that trespasses... better check the registry, I mean it's not like this is foreshadowing... what happens next in the movie, I'll get to the other later. For now, the mom gets rid of Gordy's flies, but in order for anything to happen, some need to somehow remain, and there is, from an unseen fly trap, and with him not learning anything we're nearing the end.

The movie cut to a bug zapper infrequently, I don't know if this is gonna have any relevance to what happens, but I'm getting ahead of myself. The flies mutate and grow to a giant size, thanks to the manure, when we see the flies it isn't done in the form of a jumpscare, that's a plus because giant flies are kinda silly, and they proceed to kill Gordy....'s hands.

The asthma detail had also worked well because it would explain how he was unable to scream loud enough, the parents get a full fright upon seeing the flies, and Gordy wakes up. You'd think this was a fake out but turned out to be real, but no, Gordy was just waking up, lounging on a hammock, now having prosthetic arms and accepting his fate.

I'll admit, I expected him to die, so he got off incredibly lucky, and he took it like a trooper. Of course losing your arms to flies is a piece of cake compared to-

Okay, the end, things go dark to prepare for a final scare... one that does not come yet, they get checked up on by an uncle, who turns out to be the monster janitor, I don't hear the other kids screaming so I assume he didn't just kill them for the crime of skepticism, but that's about it.

Thoughts

I'm not here to deny the creepy and depraved shit Brian Peck did, but I need to be objective. Compared to Victor Salva, Peck was more discreet, everything he did was behind closed doors and it doesn't show in this movie.

But, if you remove Peck from the equation, you're essentially left with an Are you Afraid of the Dark or Goosebumps type affair, which is pretty apt, as this came out two months after Are you Afraid of the Dark came out. Somehow this movie managed to keep my attention, I appreciate moments where certain cliches are either subverted or not done, the performances are fine enough, and to reiterate, if you see this movie with no context to Peck, you may not know what he has done, even if he acted creepy around Michael Bower behind the scenes.

Of course this is no underrated masterpiece, or that good at all, don't get it twisted. At the end of the day this is just a mere curiosity, and the only reason you may know about it is because you looked through Peck's filmography. A film by a man who got by through connections, popping up in the most random places, and you know the rest.

But let's be grateful Peck isn't on the scene anymore, and it only took fifteen years for him to finally eff off.

X-Men 97 Impressions

 So not too long ago, Disney released an announcement for X-Men 07. It isn't a reboot, it isn't a remake, it isn't a standalone movie, it's not even gonna be some Love and Thunder-ian nightmare. It's intended to act as a continuation of the 1990s animated series.

To be perfectly honest, X-Men was never a part of my childhood. I have heard of X-Men in general, but I never heard of the show or saw much of it, at least until Nostalgia Critic covered it way back when. On one hand, I'd have no say in the quality of X-Men, on the other, at least this means I can approach this new show without any bias. How does an outsider feel about X-Men? Especially a Disney property?

General Stuff

When going into a Marvel property, it's important to highlight the connection it has to its parent company. While Disney was able to make Marvel content profitable, it's clear Disney had run Marvel into the ground, and things could be better. A company would do anything to restore good faith, and something tells me that's the mentality Disney had when they decided to do Deadpool 3, and this show, bringing back a popular character, and use nostalgia to some advantage.

A company would often turn to a safe-haven when they know a majority of their projects barely meet or fall below expectations. Why else are we getting another Planet of the Apes movie? And why are we getting more X-Men, let alone a continuation of the 90s series now?

Though honestly it seems like X-Men is the perfect IP to turn to in this era, given its themes, and the only reason it took so long for Disney to get their hands on it was legal ownership, or something like that, I don't know the score.

I'm not one of those "anti-woke" types who would assume X-Men has been pigeonholed, because that would be a stretch. The old cartoon, even the general philosophy, has always been progressive, though I would argue it and other shows like it handled certain themes better than most shows today; either with more subtlety or better writing, whereas a lot of stuff these days are a bit too on the nose. I'm all for covering issues, but there're right and wrong ways to go about it.

Recognizable Changes

As far as noticeable changes go, it is said that Morph will become non-binary. I get what they're going for, given that Morph's ability is to become anyone he/she/they so chooses, with so many identities, it's fair to assume they have little sense of their own identity anymore. I guess if anyone had to go through an overhaul Morph seemed like the ideal choice.

A Rant about Asses

But there is of course one aspect that's driving people nuts. Rogue's ass. People are mad that Rogue isn't as, ahem, built as she was back then, and given people's attitudes toward more progressive stuff these days you can imagine what that's like.

Back in the 90s, before any real standards were set, before any major disasters influenced the future of cartoons as we knew them, things were a bit looser, and cheap, and that was outweighed by the ambition writers had back then, animation errors and off-modeling would be very common back then.

And what am I trying to say here? The calling card people go to, the one shot people use when making their complaints... it was off-model. Rouge does not have that big of an ass in any scene other than the one people go to. It's all one big misunderstanding that people refuse to pick up on.

But why would they? Well, referring back to the lack of standards and how 90s cartoons got away with a lot back then? Among many things, one of them was women with sex appeal. Such examples include the 1996 Incredible Hulk cartoon, with the infamous She-Hulk transformation that got a lot of people interested in the character, I can attest. That booty shot of Rogue had a similar effect on a lot of people.

Now, it's one thing to get an interest, everyone has their kinks, they're not my business, but this has gone beyond a simple interest to an actual criticism toward X-Men 97, especially since it's over something that was never really considered in-model for Rogue to start with.

To sum this up, I've developed a psychological complex where if people shit on a new iteration of an old show because of very minor things, especially if there's a good explanation to why things have changed, I will not take them seriously. I'm saying this as someone who had no background with X-Men, as someone who can see the faults in established properties trying to approach modern issues, and something's smelling rotten.

Final Thoughts

I have no intention of watching X-Men 97, along with the lack of attachment to X-Men, I don't have, nor do I intend to get Disney+. Honestly, X-Men 97 seems like a desperate attempt by Disney to restore good faith to the Marvel brand by relying on nostalgic properties, and a lot of people are clearly taking the bait. Who knows what the actual show will be like, but I'm not gonna find out.

And to think, the one thing people lost their shit over was an off-model scene not being represented. It's bound to lead to a snowball effect that would turn the tides on media discussion, probably, I dunno.

Top 5 Classic DCAU Shows I still Love

Superhero fatigue, it's the beginning of the end for an ongoing series of superhero films, and it has already claimed the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I'm in a similar boat when it comes to the DC Animated Universe. It really feels like they have stuck to one or two tonal directions for longer than they should have, yes I'm sure it's meant to establish continuity or stuff like that, but it's starting to get old. When I see a new DC cartoon coming out, I'd have a feeling it'd be the most generic thing I'd ever seen, I mean in my personal opinion.

But, it doesn't mean I have to rule out every single DC cartoon. I've been revisiting certain ones to see if they still hold up for me, and I've been able to narrow it down to five... and four of which are from the Timmverse. I'm gonna share five DC cartoons I had revisited, and came out still loving them.

#5: Batman Beyond

Anyone remember The Hub? Back when it was on they used to air reruns of some of the old Timmverse cartoons, Superman and Batman TAS and this. It was through The Hub I got to see these shows, and I liked what I saw... well, Batman TAS is a good show, but honestly kinda overrated, more on that later.

I like this show kinda for the same reasons everyone else does. It has a darker tone compared to Batman TAS, in a way I can't make an example of because I haven't seen much of the show in so long, sorry. But hey, Batman: TAS fans rejoice for an extension of that series, with some teenage drama and a serialized redemption arc that sees the future's Batman earn that title.

Although I wouldn't blame you if you had a better time with Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. Compared to Batman: TAS, Batman Beyond had the better movie adaptation, closing the book on Bruce Wayne's story and bringing Joker back in style. Of course I can't do these shows justice in explaining them, just know that I have great respect for them, and if you really wanna know, you're better off watching them for yourself.

#4: Superman TAS

Superman can be considered a lighter inverse of Batman, no wonder people openly rejected Man of Steel. While this has a similar tone to Batman: TAS, Superman does a great job at standing on its own, while going dark whenever it needs to. Superman also has a more nostalgic look and feel to it. Timmverse shows made use of art deco themes and backgrounds, which are generally considered timeless, and since Superman had been a component of popular culture for so long, it's good to keep up tradition, of course that shouldn't deter people from switching things up, in general, sometimes DC fans are a bit too picky when it comes to representing heroes.

Back to the tone, it has a better balance than say, Teen Titans, what with that show's near constant tonal whiplash. You don't have to err to one extreme or the other if you want to do both.

#3: The Batman

Which means, yes, I prefer the 2004 The Batman cartoon to Batman: TAS. Not saying one is better than the other, but I just found The Batman more interesting, then again it was the first Batman cartoon I saw, perhaps with the exception of a tiny portion of Mask of the Phantasm I saw as a kid.

But why do I like it more? It's all in how it handles its tone. Batman: TAS had a more theatric tone, most of the time characters would get into monologues and it had a more straightly-played serious tone. Whereas The Batman had a bit more grit to it, often going hard when it comes to more insane and tragic characters. Ethan Bennett's Clayface, intended to act as a substitute to Two-Face, had some stronger build-up and more horrifying culmination, and they even redeemed him in his last appearance.

That aside, the show's use of more saturated colors and grit lends to a fairly unique show, providing an underlying sense of just how much Gotham is slowly starting to sink, this was Year Three Batman mind you.

They also do a good job portraying the grief Bruce feels for his family, as well as his dynamic with Alfred, which I feel is the strongest in any Batman cartoon I've seen. Though if you want the best experience for the show, stick with the first season and determine if you want to continue.

#2: Static Shock

Even as I started to stray from DC and action cartoons in general back then, I always had a soft spot for Static Shock. It came out closer to the end of the Timmverse, and it really stands well on its own. It is as compelling as it is funny, and it gets right down to the bigger IRL issues, trying to avoid spoilers here, basically summed it up already.

#1: Justice League Unlimited

This surpasses Static Shock because I just got back into the series recently. This is another nostalgic show for me, and that's not all it has going for it. As one of the last Timmverse shows, I get a lot of what made Timm's shows great, from the stories to the general tone. What makes this show great is that you don't necessarily have to read comic books beforehand to understand what's happening.

Not to mention the intro is an utter earworm.