Top 3 Worst Cartoon Network Big Picks

 TV pilots are a special thing. Whether they serve as the very birth of a beloved series or just represent a creator at their most raw, before the network opted to trim the fat, you can never go wrong. Most pilots are shown behind closed doors, act as a proof of concept following an old college film, intended for a showcase before they decide it is ripe for a full series, or the pilot becomes the first episode of the series like CatDog, there is already an intended first episode like Ed, Edd n' Eddy's, it could be the second episode like Doug, the sixth like Rocko's Modern Life, or if you're lucky, you get three for the price of one, case in point, the proper first episode of Codename Kids Next Door, its pilot from 2001 and another one released the previous year.

Stuff like Oh Yeah! Cartoons and Random Cartoons tended to feature their cartoons in a vacuum, though whether it be nepotism or genuine interest, we'd get a series... either a full one or just a series of shorts. Stuff on KaBlam! got lucky like Angela Anaconda, and Shorty McShort Shorts did absolutely nothing. But, on Cartoon Network, they committed far more than the others, from What-a-Cartoon to what Cartoonstitute could've been, and even now with the network screening pilots on YouTube, we at least had something to look forward to.

Even beyond that, they individually screened pilots throughout the summers of 2000 and 2001 and the rest is history on both counts. Beyond the pilots that actually got picked up, we all know the pilots that failed with which people sing the praises of on a regular basis.

Who hasn't heard of A Kitty Bobo Show? Frankly I prefer Bremen Avenue Experience.

People talk about the successes and what could've been, but how often do people talk about the absolute failures? Those that deserved to bomb, and as this was a viewer selection deal it would show how unpopular they truly were. From a summation of the sheer incompetence of a future degenerate to a series being dead from the start, I'm gonna go over the top 3 worst Big Picks that deserved to fail.

This is gonna be a combination of three reviews I did in the past, remastered, so yeah, may be in this for a while.

#3: Foe Paws

Let's begin with where Chris Savino got his proper beginning as a creator. After this pilot bottomed out, he became the showrunner for later seasons of Dexter's Laboratory and PowerPuff Girls. I do personally like the later season Dexter's Lab episodes, even if it's from nostalgia, but quite frankly, Chris was, shall I say, a competent hack. Case in point, The Loud House seemed interesting at first, but now, we can see why it's so successful. It's cheap, has one-dimensional characters, lazy writing, among other things.

And then of course he got the boot for being an utter creep, and his only salvation is a bible cartoon on a streaming service too obscure to mention, either that or Chris was to Butch Hartman what Star Giant Productions is to MrEnter, heh, what happened to thou shall not steal lawl.

But, let's forget he gave Nickelodeon another ace in the hole, let's forget how he became the ventriloquist to two notable shows, he could have Powerpuff Girls as far as I care, those people are batshit insane, and above all let's forget about how he is a lower tier degenerate now on a quest for god, Chris, he is a guy making his way in the world and showing us what he can do, it's only the third spot, it can get worse, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

To sum up, Foe Paws sees a cat and dog getting adopted by a wacky owner, hijinks sure to ensure, and they're treated like her children. No, seriously, like children, clothes and all. Now, a simple premise can work if it's at least entertaining. Give it to stuff like Squirrel Boy, Mike, Lu and Og and I guess Ruby Gillman, they're dirt simple but they're not unbearable. However, if there're cracks to the foundation, they're hard to ignore, and ho boy...

First up, stop me if you heard this one before, animals that can talk but cannot be understood by humans, this is not looking to break any new ground. The fact the owner can’t understand Vivian and Rollo is also a problem, and it could give off some pretty dire vibes, as they can’t say otherwise to her, especially when she decides what to do and what they can do, not helping that she treats them like humans, even if she can't understand what they're saying. She really seems like someone that'd serve as an antagonist in a series where strays remain strays, perhaps she learns a hard lesson or we actually get to feel sorry for her as she never got to have kids, maybe even lost them long ago and can't let them go.

If Foe Paws had done something like Larry and Steve where the human can actually understand them, it would honestly make things better, perhaps better flesh out dynamics and actually allow us to feel something for these characters.

But let’s get back to the owner, aka another prominent protagonist that we would see the most often had this been picked up. She is an Italian grandma, which seems fine, until you realize she is a stereotype played straight. So straight she is literally named Mama Mia. Why not Mama Leone, lest Billy Joel is too sophisticated for you. She’s a stereotype, and while that is an issue, it isn’t a defining one, and no show is exempt from having stereotypes, they do tend to have a kernel of truth most of the time.

The problem is that with stereotypes and obvious traits you can see jokes coming right away. If you've seen one, chances are you've seen it all. For instance, an old Italian woman making dinner, oh, is it spaghetti? The most common dish made by Italians? I was gonna say spaghetti and meatballs, those served here, are not Italian. But, while they weren’t created in Italy they were made by Italian immigrants. I know this seems like some random point, but who knows, maybe Mama Mia really is an Italian immigrant, they could've had some opportunities to flesh this out, but this is a Chris Savino cartoon, and the fact that he had to go for such an obvious stereotypical Italian name for her suggests he would've never considered anything more than just a living checklist.

By the way, I'm Italian, and this will be my defense for anyone saying I'm taking this dumb cartoon too seriously.

But that's her, what about everyone else? There's Vivian, who in spite of the name, is actually a male, and leaving it at that can easily be used against me this day and age. I need to specify, Vivian was initially a nameless male cat, until he was adopted by Mama Mia and dressed like a girl and called Vivian. So yeah, he didn't choose a new gender identity, it was forced upon him when it wasn't his choice, I really need to make that clear because I'm not looking to make any more enemies.

Now, in order to soften the blow so to speak, they made Vivian into a grating pessimist, so that way it can gaslight you into thinking Vivian deserves all this. But, much like how Italian stereotypes can telegraph jokes long before they happen, you'd know Vivian is setting him-, I'm gonna say him because that's the identity he goes with, -self up for the punchline. He claims he is the one bought in a buy one get one free sale when it was the dog bought and Vivian's the freebee. He looks to the window for what he assumes to be a vixen, it turns out to be a grotesque old lady.

Oh, and when he is named, he teases the dog for the name he is chosen in an over the top fashion, you get the point. He asks for a lot of shit that happens to him, but he is already not very likable. Here's the problem. Vivian is a main character, and main characters need something for people to root for or make them follow said characters in spite of their many misfortunes. Let's refer to CatDog. Cat goes through a lot of shit, most of it being through his own fault, and yet he's not just a pessimist. He's funny, he loves his brother, he's awkward, well, he has more than Vivian, and we actually have reasons to care about him and put up with him.

If you have Vivian bemoan the conditions he and the dog are put through, it would suggest this is the worst possible scenario to be in. And it kinda makes the dog an ass because he would encourage it.

Speaking of dogs, Rollo. Rollo is here to fulfill the role of the optimist, or in other words act as Vivian's foil. I mean very well, anything to lighten the tension, but whether it's the situation or himself, Rollo, along with being an absolute bore compared to everyone else is flat out annoying, at least indirectly, and when you look deeper into the context behind their situation it just makes him worse. Anything wrong with Rollo comes solely through implication. He enjoys their new living situation when Vivian doesn't, to the point he is ignorant to why Vivian is somehow more jaded than usual, he doesn't see anything wrong with Mama Mia because they have a home now apparently. Either he's selfish or just horribly oblivious.

If you want an example of an optimist done right, refer to Lazlo from Camp Lazlo. I gave the show shit because I believed Lazlo was just blindly happy all the time, then I realized it wasn't so. He's naive, but not oblivious, he is receptive to what's happening around him, he's friendly to a fault, all in all he's just a better realized optimist.

Now, if Vivian and Rollo just put up with their crazy owner, her delusions of them being humans which may be shattered because she got them from a pet store and begins treating them like humans, jamming spaghetti and meatballs down their throats, that's one thing, but they have it where Vivian tries to return to the pet store, but Rollo gets him to stay. That Stockholm Syndrome kicking in there boy?

As for the art direction, in the past I had assumed Chris took heavy influence from Schoolhouse Rock, which ironically another Cartoon Network show did just that with Whatever Happened to... Robot Jones. But looking at this, it seems more like Chris took influence from newspaper comics. The animation features similar stilted movements to his runs on Dexter's Laboratory and PowerPuff Girls, and while it at least stands out from the other pilots, it's not very remarkable. For some more irony, Chris had published a comic strip For Brothers in 2020, and even more, he worked at Spumco at some point, no I'm not kidding.

With that said, this pilot is a double threat. It has a premise that is unappealing, and you'd fear what the rest of the series would've been like had this been picked up, seeing two animals in a dire situation, and this is a comedy. Had this gone to series, throw Mama Mia out of the fold and just have them go between owners constantly, the potential that has could help sustain itself, they go through different owners each episode before returning back to the pet store, situations will vary. Of course Vivian and Rollo need to have their personalities altered in order for us to start caring about them, Vivan needs to be more than just a pessimist, and Rollo needs to have some more awareness, lest episodes just have Vivian babysitting him on a regular basis.

Before I close this off, yes, Foe Paws is a pun, Faux Pas, is a blunder, I imagine Chris just picked the title without any thought to what it meant, in a fault soon to be trumped by Terremoto Heights. It doesn't even live up to the title. Their life is a blunder and yet it's played as a scenario they have to deal with. I mean the internet was still developing, but dictionaries exist man.

But yes, the title ironically spelled out the pilot's fate. Foe Paws, is a Faux Pas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mTtJlBkack&pp=ygUIZm9lIHBhd3M%3D

#2: My Freaky Family

Hey, remember when dysfunctional families were all the rage? And then for how many shows that did it it became a cliche in itself and thus undesirable? My Freaky Family is basically a key example of that, and somehow on the lower ebb. As another connection to Powerpuff Girls, this pilot was created by John McIntyre, a director on the earlier seasons of Powerpuff Girls.

That aside, lower ebb, what could that mean? My Freaky Family basically takes the worst stereotypes of most dysfunctional families and wraps them into one tight package. You have the delusional housewife, the surly father complete with wife beater, the nagging grandma and that evil older brother. Granted, the youngest in the family happens to be the main character so points for not throwing in a baby to add to the cliches.

But, what does My Freaky Family have to offer? The plot of this sees Nadine, the main girl, attempting to avoid getting a commemorative photo taken before her first day of school. This seems like a fairly petty issue, until you realize this family is basically immortalizing her shame. So it's behind closed doors, but she has to come back to that every day, and it's clear this family will take pictures of first everythings, I'll let you come to your own conclusions on that.

What sets this above Foe Paws is that most of the jokes come off very dark with no effort. Nadine's dad thinks she's behind academically. Not doing anything? How about how she is given scrambled eggs even though she's allergic.

"Eggs? I'm allergic to eggs!"

"But these are my famous scrambled eggs, everybody loves them!"

That is an actual exchange by the way. Am I being too dramatic? What was the punchline? She is too oblivious or wrapped up in her image as a housewife that she would shut out anything that dares to contrast it? Maybe?

The remainder of the episode sees Nadine trying to get to school before that picture is taken of her, and yeah, they're deadset on getting it taken. Nadine is embarrassed, though to be fair she let slip that was her mom. To its credit at least they don't get the picture of her, though now that people know she is attached to that kind of family, I guess they got a premise for that now.

Okay, chances are John based this on most elements of his life. I know Danny Antonucci wrote Ed, Edd n' Eddy with some elements of his childhood in mind, so if John intended to portray his memories, good on him for finding a way to let off that kind of steam, but there's little application for a series, either that or the pilot didn't give the best impression.

There's little familial harmony that, again, means a lot because we'd be seeing these characters on a regular basis. If Nadine can brush off these bad instances by the end, okay, but I question what staying power this would've had if this was ultimately picked. If this was left to viewer opinion, it says a lot if this didn't even come close to getting it.

As for the animation, this honestly seems pretty generic. It animates a bit like PowerPuff Girls, even its art style doesn't feel that unique, you'd swear you saw something similar before. To be fair, McIntyre had  involvement in a lot of familiar shows before then, perhaps that rubbed off on this. It's not horrible, but it really doesn't stand out.

Not the worst, and I can say that because this is only number two. Its time now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzcEwh-gFcs&pp=ygUQbXkgZnJlYWt5IGZhbWlseQ%3D%3D

#1: Lucky Lydia

About being dead from the start, it's like this. Lucky Lydia had absolutely no potential to be a series. It spelled out that she will always succeed no matter what- I'm getting ahead of myself.

Of all the pilots covered here, this is one of the few that was not produced in-house. It was an American-Australian co-production between Bob Camp and Arthur Filloy, both of which having previously worked on The Ren and Stimpy Show. Now, Bob Camp needs no introduction, but to sum him up, he put more effort into Ren and Stimpy than its own creator... I got nothing else. In this, while Filloy seemed to pull the most weight in terms of story and conception, Camp's biggest capacity is as an executive producer, even getting his own vanity card to that effect. 

Interesting fact, this Cartoon Network pilot has the most closing logos compared to the others, to explain, financier, animation studio and creator credit.

Okay enough fluff, let's get into this.

The defining flaw of this show takes a little while to set in. The series centers on Lydia, a girl who is blessed with constant luck, no matter what. It would dawn on you after the first few instances, and then there's the problem. There're no stakes here, we know she is gonna come out on top in the end because she has the kind of luck that would get her there.

It's her defining trait, she has little else to her, and it makes her come off as unintentionally annoying, nothing can get in her way, and if you have that in mind it'll make the plot of this pilot seem far more uncomfortable. The deal here is that she wants to get into a private club, they try to get her to do some challenges, she obviously wins, claims the deed and holds the boys captive as babies.

Remember, she is the protagonist.

I just basically summed it up, but if you need a refresher, Lucky Lydia practically cancels itself out with its plot. There are little to no stakes here, we know she is gonna make it because her luck is gonna bail her out. She just has this luck, there's no plot point, catch, anything that could raise any tension, she'll just brave through with absolutely no effort.

In other words, ever wanted to see what a Mary-Sue is? Lydia is a good example of one, she is also the defining element of this pilot, how could she not be?

And keep in mind, this was intended to be pitched as a series. If Lydia has all this luck and no stakes attached, it's gonna turn out to be an incredibly boring series. If you wanted this to work, Lydia should've been the antagonist, messing with people and thus those bugged would try to best her. Or, what if with every instance of good luck Lydia has it is met with bad luck right after. You don't gotta wonder, because What-a-Cartoon's Awfully Lucky basically epitomizes that. A guy you don't care that much for finds a pearl that gives its holders good luck followed by bad luck. A device, a character you're neutral towards and stakes.

But hey, something like this could be forgivable if the humor's good... it's not, it's borderline non-existent with the most prevalent jokes being sight-gags and subversion in service of Lydia's luck, and they take away more than they add to the quality. The animation is certainly unique with a retro aesthetic, but by the end I'd take Yakkity Yak over it in terms of shows that had UPA's sensibilities in mind.

I gotta say, what was the point of this? Did they assume the Big Pick was an animation showcase rather than a testing ground? Was this a shitpost? What the hell were they going for? All I know is that statistics don't like, either that or the fact that this didn't make the cut reflected just how little people cared for this steaming turd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjpFU9JvgFQ&pp=ygULbHVja3kgbHlkaWE%3D

Final Thoughts

There're numerous factors to Cartoon Network pilots not making the cut, whether it be budget, a lack of interest or what have you. I have chosen these three pilots because, as they were, there was no potential in any of them to be a series, lest they'd be overhauled considerably. I know a pilot is just a rough idea for a full series, but when the success of it hinges on the audience, you had better make something that'd catch their interest or show there is far more to it that what we've seen.

Grim and Evil and Codename Kids Next Door clearly had more to them, hell even most pilots that never made it only happened because they were either too niche or... something else I'm not sure about. Even so, most of these pilots had another chance in the form of sequels, or devoted followings that persist to this day.

With that in mind these three stick out like sore thumbs, you have a better understanding to why these failed and are probably grateful they did. They seem harmless until you really think about the broader implications they give off.

All I can say is, some pilots are better off unsold, and we'd be worse off if anyone could get any pilot off the ground, and maybe A Kitty Bobo Show is better off as a one-off.

The Mystery of Ed, Edd n' Eddy Credits (season 1)

Ed, Edd n' Eddy has always had a decent crop of mysteries. What's under Edd's hat? What the hell is Keenan Christensen doing these days? Can Danny Antonucci's politics be justified over his Canadian roots? But, there is one mystery that is rarely ever discussed, if at all. Ladies and gentlemen, the end credit mystery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp7N00MuU4c

The show's first season is a peculiar case, beyond it finding its footing. The title cards featured listed credits in the same font as the actual title, but in the first season, they are presented through a basic font. But, what makes it weird is that the latter half of the first season went for conventions to be followed in ensuing seasons. But, one thing that has always been consistent was the closing credits, logos aside. At least, for the most part.

The second batch of episodes were similar, yet different, from the pitch of the closing theme to the alternate font, and no other episode was like it. It also carried over to the title cards in that batch, which were played in a higher pitch.

Now, for a time, Pop Goes the Ed and Over Your Ed were claimed to be the first episodes of Ed, Edd n Eddy, but that's not the case, as The Ed-Touchables and Nagged to Ed were. Ed-Touchables and Nagged had the standard closing credits, and tone for the title cards, and you can kinda see the confusion in the second episodes featuring a rare instance of a tone up and an alternative credit font. Adding onto this, the upload of the alternate credits are claimed to be a prototype, and from 1998. Promos for the show had occurred late into that year so Cartoon Network had access by that point.

Let's go into some theories.

First theory is that Pop Goes the Ed was the actual first episode, not in a literal sense, but in terms of production order. Can you guess what the first episode of Rocko's Modern Life was? Was it No Pain, No Gain? Nope, it was the ninth, Carnival Knowledge. It was the first episode produced. Ergo, it's likely Pop Goes the Ed was the first episode completed. However, it was deemed to not be so, and wrought through a misunderstanding. During the Best Day Edder marathon in 2007, Cartoon Network slated this as the show's first episode, and that carried on to the show's season 1 DVD. However, the only evidence stated to the contrary was that The Ed-Touchables was aired first.

Refer back to production order on that, but the production codes may dispel that theory somewhat.

Second theory was that the episodes were switched. Pop Goes the Ed was in production first, but somewhere along the lines the writers deemed Ed-Touchables to be a better introduction to the series and switched the episodes, Ed-Touchables being listed first because it was completed entirely before Pop Goes the Ed.

A third theory would suggest that the writers were unsure about sticking with what they had. What I mean by that is that maybe they decided to pitch up the episode themes and closing theme, and change up the credit font, changing it back when they felt what they had first was the best. Okay maybe.

But then there's my personal theory. Pop Goes the Ed was an early test pilot completed in 1998, a mentioned year for the end credits. The Ed-Touchables was the first episode aired, but there is a possibility Pop Goes the Ed initially existed as an early pilot, and it was put into the series proper later on once the characters were properly introduced, to wit, Ed-Touchables introducing the main characters and its B-segment introducing the Kankers.

Referring back to Rocko's Modern Life, we have a similar situation with the episode Trash-o-Madness, where it was the pilot of that series, but was held over into the B-segment of episode six. There may be a similar situation here. Pop Goes the Ed was made earlier on, but technically wasn't the first episode as we can see. As for why the tones are different, chances are Pop Goes the Ed was the only segment to have that, and the credits and B-segment were tweaked to match for consistency.

But then there's the matter of Lee, Marie and May getting credited, and they weren't in Pop Goes the Ed. With that in mind it's likely Over Your Ed was also an early episode produced, but Nagged to Ed was completed first in order to properly introduce them.

But that's my theory, the case is open to anyone who has an idea.

LTA: GamingMagic13

 For those in the know about him, in the event he does anything irredeemable, or is tied to anything more salacious than poor conduct, I will retract what I say in this post and it will be promptly removed. Whatever I say is based on what is already known.

GamingMagic13 is a content reviewer perhaps most infamous for doing an overly long review of Toy Story 4, regardless of whether the film is good or bad, along with some pretty poor takes and how he handled them, these occurring throughout the previous year for better or worse. I first heard of GamingMagic13 through a review and let’s play he did of Dragon’s Lair 3D. Not gonna lie, it’s a great game, dead ass, and it was cool that it was getting such dedicated exposure.

I didn’t know about the worst of him until well after, and even then all I heard was stabs at Trevor (GM13) in passing. He seems like quite the head case... although I don't think he's down for the count just yet.

Yes I am aware he made a six consecutive hour rant on Toy Story 4, yes I’m aware he is far from respectful on different opinions, yes I’m aware of his bad takes, yes I’m aware things can get repetitive in his longer reviews and absolutely angry, but who hasn't at some point on YouTube? When you're passionate about something it would blur your better judgement because you put your all into expressing it, you felt strongly about this and it'd be harder to hear others out because you'd believe they don't see what you have. Not saying that as a defense, but to hopefully give you an idea on why shit like this happens. In a word, it's pride.

Trevor, for better or worse, is clearly passionate about the movies he covers, and to his credit the movies he reviewed where his shit hit the fan rode off of existing properties and thus had a lot that needed to be addressed, at least in principle. If he was just raging about a movie that exists in isolation with no connection to anything then fine, I see your point. He nitpicks, and there're times it's not necessary, but in a way nitpicking can help reinforce your argument if you have one. I can imagine most movies he covers could improve based on his claims, indirectly though, like what he said about Bo Peep. He goes on and on about her, and I'd think, yeah, it would be interesting to see what traits she would take up after being separated from the other toys, but the movie bungled that by having her pick up those traits before she was taken away.

I mean it makes more sense than applying the continuity of Toy Story shorts to the movie. Other than that, he has a point, but most of the time he goes about expressing that point the wrong way. You say gaslighting, I say they didn't want a particularly feminine female demonstrating that much weakness.

So, not being respectful of other opinions being rooted in passion and pride, going into the crux of his review style, but what about the length? Let me say this, Trevor isn't the only one guilty of this. Not everything can be summed up on a surface level, especially when most things ride off the back of many long past, or have endeared for so long, there needs to be context, arguments, and a demonstration of apt in your research. Either TikTok killed everyone's attention spans or review culture is starting to become worse than it already is.

Now for his hot takes. He considers games like Sonic Heroes and Mario 64 to be shit, apply the pride argument here. I'd be a hypocrite for calling him out because, let's face it, I enjoy a lot of stuff that is outright rejected by the public, Trevor hates most of what is loved by the public, including me, I even had a collection of written posts to that effect bashing Teen Titans, I'd have no leg to stand on.

There's also the matter of how old he is. Apparently he began his YouTube career in 2014 at the age of 11, with a let's play of an Indiana Jones game. The Toy Story 4 videos and those he makes his hot video game takes came out last year. Do the math, he would've been around 19 or 20 when he made those videos. Now, why am I going this route? Buckle up, bear with me. You mature physically at that age, but do you mature mentally? Let me refer to the concept of a 90s hangover. A 90s hangover is used to describe how elements of the prior decade bled into the early-2000s, certain shows coming out in the last leg of that decade kept going, certain fashions, trends and bands were still wildly popular, etc.

Where the hell am I going with this? It's sorta like when you enter your adult years. You just get right into it physically, but you still embody traits of your younger years. You don't become entirely mature mentally because you've yet to experience the full rigors of adult hood. When you're 18, you still have to go to school, college to be exact, and most of the time college students are just embracing their full transitions into maturity without much critical thought to match. For all we know, Trevor lacked much critical thought when going into his videos, still taking traits of what he was when he was younger. It's usually around 21 or 22 that you gradually mature mentally, as you take on the rigors of adulthood, you had finished college or are in your senior year, and you take on new responsibilities.

Okay, if you don't buy that, how about this? At least he wasn't 30 when he made those videos, that would've been far more pathetic frankly and I'd be siding against him in that regard, make no mistake.

But, back to Toy Story 4, let's be real, it's not that good of a movie, honestly I'd say it's hardly good at all. I've seen part of the first Toy Story, but I've seen all of Toy Story 2 and 3, and when I heard of Toy Story 4, frankly I was bewildered it actually existed. So, in Trevor's defense he's not going after a beloved movie, but he just went about it in the worst way.

Now, there's the matter of him taking a cartoon too seriously and getting angry over it. Yes that's a fair argument to make, but honestly I find stuff like that more entertaining. They may just be playing up the anger for laughs, of course there's always that one guy saying AVGN did it better because he can do no wrong and he always needs to be held high enough to sniff god's anus- see what I mean on hypocrisy? Honestly, cartoon reviewers that want to be taken seriously, and go into dramatic breakdowns is far more pathetic because it's clear they take cartoons too seriously enough for them to imply it hurts them on a mental level, against what seems to be a throwback to the days of angry reviewing. Pick your poison.

By the end, at his best, Trevor is passionate about the movies he covers, a little too passionate, and unable to keep his mouth shut on stuff that could come back to bite him, but who knows? Maybe he'll learn to be better about it. There're small glimmers of him being a bit respectful, but that's just what I've seen.

https://sta.sh/064vd77yoxw

For now, Trevor isn't the only controversial YouTuber I like, and as long as he hasn't done anything like dox or groom someone, and as he's technically young if my mental maturity theory holds water, he's not down for the count just yet, and he has managed to maintain respectable ratios on his videos, well his Toy Story 4 master post managed to keep one, I haven't seen the individual videos to know just for the record.

If you're not into GamingMagic13, more power to you, I can understand why, but that's just my business.

LTA: Hollow Sacrifices

In life, we all get to a point where we have to give something up for the better of the world or ourselves. The directions we take are determined by our circumstances, do we want to return to the way things were, or do we take an opportunity to change? Sometimes the latter is the best option, but other times it isn't if we put some thought into it.

I'm of course referring to what occurs in film and on television. I've had this feeling for the longest time, but I never had many examples to refer to until now. So let's get into it. Firstly, let me better explain what I mean by these sacrifices. A character is forced into a role they didn't want, whether it was because of an act of malice, by total accident or whatever. They spend a majority of the film or show trying to undo what happened to them, but then, something happens that make them do a total 180.

I can't confirm where this truly began, or if it happened here first, but this is popular enough to serve as a key example. This act of self-sacrifice can be traced back to 2001's Shrek, itself intended to act as a subversion or commentary on fairy tales, and commercialism, with the crux of it being that the big stupid ugly ogre is the hero, while the brave prince is a phony, also evil, and through true love's first kiss, Princess Fiona would take the form of the other end. This was through a curse that transforms her into an ogre at night, and because Shrek demonstrated he loved her and vice versa, she would become an ogre, fair trade.

I bring Shrek up because it feels like most other movies try to follow that kind of arc, or just take the basic principle, not helping that the examples I bring up happened to come after Shrek. First example, Brother Bear. Kenai became a bear after killing one in cold blood, then by the end of it he never regains his humanity in spite of finishing his arc. You may say the impact, if there would be one, wouldn't be as strong if Kenai regained his humanity, well what impact does him remaining a bear have? It's like a level above purgatory, frankly.

Second example, Monsters Vs. Aliens. Susan's entire arc really rubs me the wrong way. I get it, her old normal life wasn't that great, and it took a lot of adjusting to get into the role of Ginormica. But what really taints her arc is that rather than applying what she has learned as Ginormica, you know, more confidence, bravery, the like, she decides, fuck it, she will remain where she was as if that's meant to reflect any growth, it just felt so... off. It's like they had each character resign to their fate rather than have the desire to take what they've learned and apply it to their old lives.

Of course no one would ever be the same after going through journeys like Brother Bear or Monsters Vs. Aliens, but there's a fine line between leaving the journey, and keeping it going. If there is any meaning behind those, I don't see it. I do however, see a reason why these things went the way they did. They turned out the way they did for the sake of having the means to push the films further.

It's like this. Brother Bear got a sequel. Monsters Vs. Aliens got an animated series. If either Kenai or Susan returned to normal by the end of their respective movies, now how the hell could there be a sequel in any form? Lose the characters, lose a key component, and thus, lose any chance at making some extra cash, and remember, it's Disney, they've been dishing out sequels for years, and DreamWorks had every intent of also getting money for their stuff.

In other words, Shrek may've inspired other movie makers to try and capitalize on what made Shrek good in subtle ways, while ensuring they could get as much as they could out of their movies.

It's a bit like dysfunctional families, what started as a simple subversion turned into the norm for a lot of movies. But hey, repetitive outcomes aren't always the end of the world as long as the stories justify them, like Pinocchio. It's like this, what if Pinocchio opted to remain a puppet, foregoing his own struggles- oh wait the live-action remake of Pinocchio kinda implied that.

Oh what if in The Jungle Book Mowgli never returned to the Man Village- yeah live-action remake.

Or what about what if Beauty and the Beast, Beast never became human again? He had resigned himself to his curse in spite of finding love, and yes, he does let Beauty go, but that's a sign of genuine love on his part to her, and yes he gets brought back to normal by the end of it. He grew as a character, and met the terms of the curse laid before him. If he remained a beast, then it would ruin the whole point of the story, otherwise you'd just have the Beast languish in his castle in loneliness, which he would die of.

The Emperor's New Groove, Kuzco turned into a llama per the plot of Yzma, Kuzco, initially a selfish ruler, grew humble overtime, and he got to return to normal and mend the wounds he had caused. More of a demonstration of how one can grow in spite of doing wrong, of course what good would still being a llama do? Then again it never stopped the movie from getting a sequel and series adaptation.

Brave, in spite of what people feel about that film. What if Queen Elinor remained a bear for the rest of her life? The kingdom would be in chaos or some shit, and Merida would never, ever, develop as a character, at least any more than the film would've allowed. 

Referring back to Brother Bear and Monsters Vs. Aliens, I reaffirm that them returning to normal would be of no consequence. They would take what they have learned and apply it, Kenai learning to think his actions through and be a better person, Susan becoming more confident and able to tackle her dull life head on.

Those may seem like expected conclusions, but... what makes what actually happened any better? The points in favor of those seem minor by comparison. The only thing in favor of Kenai remaining a bear is to remain a companion to Koda, that's it. I have a crazy idea to how Brother Bear could've turned out, but it's gonna derail this post. The things in favor of Susan remaining Ginormica... are little to none, just appreciating the new company? Typical. Liking what the size gave her? Who says they have to feel big both mentally and physically? In fact, it seems like Susan has hardly developed, too afraid to return to her old life, so she sticks with the new one she was forced to take.

Otherwise why have her be eager to marry that man? If she was forced into it then I could kinda understand. If there's a greater meaning behind it, please tell me.

So to sum up, I can forgive characters turning back on their development, at least implacably, but there has to be something to back it up, give it greater meaning, and of course make sense. A radical shift in a character's personality can justify a predictable conclusion, but either Shrek wound up giving filmmakers the wrong idea, or they want desperately to milk a movie for however much it's worth.

Episode Review: Haunted (Teen Titans)

Of all the episodes of Teen Titans, I honestly consider Haunted to be an absolute disappointment. I know, a series that ended with Things Change, and that's not even close for me. I had reviewed this a while back, so why am I doing it again? Well, since then I've found examples of shows that incorporated ideas that I felt represented what I expected of this episode.

When it comes to Teen Titans, high expectations are had for it by default, because people put it on a pedestal. I don't want to go into the role it had in one of the more exhausting eras in cartoon history, because we all should know by now, but sufficed to say it lost a lot of good will with me. The show isn't terrible, but it isn't as great as it's poised to be, whether that label is forced on it or not. If a series takes itself seriously enough, typically it makes it easier to dissect it.

Now, Haunted, as a kid I thought it was an interesting episode in spite of not seeing the full context of it. Realizing the context after seeing it another time, okay fine, still not bad, now seeing other episodes to compare it to and realizing that Teen Titans has gone through a constant identity crisis and wasn't as daring as it was implied to be... this has to be the worst episode of the show I've seen, bar none.

The Episode

When going into why this episode proved to be a disappointment, it's important I briefly discuss the dynamic between the lead character Robin and often overarching villain Slade. Compared to others, Robin was deadset on exposing Slade, for the mystery I guess. The comics hold no grasp here because half the time the cartoon adaptations take liberties. Too bad the killer of Robin's parents (in Teen Titans it's confirmed that this iteration of Robin is Dick Grayson), and Slade are canonically different.

If there was a greater meaning behind Robin and Slade, I forgot all about it honestly. But I do remember Robin's focus on Slade slowly developed into obsession... and by the end of certain arcs things just happen to return to normal. Case in point, war with Trigon, an entire apocalypse is thwarted, and it's back to the 9 to 5, like an example of how the status quo of god can be a negative. Not to say Teen Titans doesn't have a serialized elements, it's just specific to a certain arc of episodes or individual characters.

I bring that up because this episode marks a point when Slade had been gone for a long while and Robin believes otherwise under suspicion of a grander plan being underway. Now, to go over Robin's obsession with Slade, it prompted him to don the vigilante persona Red X so he could hopefully get closer to the source, not the evil alien tofu, but, you know. There is a giveaway to what'll drive the episode herein, but I'm not gonna reveal it because that's gonna be crucial to the end.

For someone obsessed with a villain, it's fair to expect Robin to become a bit more paranoid, especially for a villain otherwise shrouded in mystery. Something like this you'd expect delusions of an ongoing plot, visions, being pitted against your friends under suspicion they're gonna heel-turn. Sure it's expected, but has a good impact when it's happening to someone with a strong moral compass, showing anyone can crack at anytime.

We get the first scenario, well, about 60/40. Slade does show up with a master plan, and cracks slowly begin to form. To sum up, Slade set up earthquake generators, it turns out there aren't any, Robin and Starfire confront Slade but Starfire claims she didn't see him, and Beast Boy has a cold. If it's not obvious, they rushed to establish something was wrong, and thus the mystery that could've been had was immediately suspended. The best way to keep people on their toes is to show that something that seems impossible has a kernel of truth. Perhaps have Slade claim that these generators are invisible to the naked eye maybe.

But what's wrong with Beast Boy, well aside from being sick? It's a case of comic relief where it isn't necessary. We all know the principle of comic relief, to relieve tension in a dark or dire story, which Haunted is poised to be. The problem, this episode isn't dark or dire, at least at first, or if you already figured out something was wrong and are just waiting for the bombshell to be dropped further than it has already.

Okay, maybe it's just a small oversight, it's early into the episode and maybe they wouldn't think kids would notice, which is kinda ironic since many fans of Teen Titans advocate cartoons aren't just for kids, but still, maybe one of the head writers had to go to the hospital or something and the rest scrambled to meet the deadline or get rid of that one script occupying the bottom desk drawer.

Things begin to crumble further when Robin confronts Slade in that old factory location he used to inhabit, and it is here this episode begins to lose me. If it wasn't already obvious something was up, we get a scene of Robin fighting nobody to spell out "Yes, Robin is crazy you dumb shit audience." In this situation it feels like the writers wanted us to immediately gravitate to one side, so they eliminated anything that could deliver some benefit of doubt, or keep us in suspense. Hyperbolic or not, that is good writing, because it allows the viewers to go beyond the intended experience an episode may have.

And, it's weird. The episode feels like it wanted to draw more on the mystery, but these extra clues were thrown in at the last minute, the scenes there and after would suggest so... but then one of the later scenes kill that thought before it could even see down the barrel. We're led, in theory, to be Robin has gone insane, but after Raven enter's Robin's head, it's confirmed he's telling the truth, just, keep in mind, people vouch for this series as one of many be all end all, great cartoons, and that makes this episode all the more insulting. Aren't we supposed to hate stupid shit in cartoons? I don't know what to believe anymore.

I do like how the realization is delivered through a punch in the face, at least symbolism is in good standing here.

So what's the deal here? Remember the giveaway I mentioned? This all began when Robin breathed in some dust that was on Slade's mask. Well, that dust happened to contain hallucinogenic material, and Slade would only appear before Robin in the dark... where Robin would feel every single hit landed on him... Okay you know what, screw the rest of the episode, you get one last lawl Beast Boy and a fakeout involving the mask which would've had potential, but everyone else was clearly too blind to see it.

After

I can forgive everything about this episode had they not worked so hard to establish the dynamic between Robin and Slade. There was an idea there, and they just gave up. It's like waiting in line for a roller coaster ride, you drum up the courage to wait in line, then by the time you get in front, you just chicken out.

Things Change was a dire episode, but I feel Haunted left me with a far worse feeling. It's one thing to completely miss an opportunity, it's another to throw in a half baked reason because either you're so afraid of putting your hero in a bad light, or you believed the audience couldn't handle it. You may say this was just for kids, no, don't give me that. The argument is often used to excuse dumb comedies, which I don't hate those shows, but as Teen Titans was poised as going above and beyond, what excuse does it have?

It's obvious, Robin finally cracks thanks to his ongoing obsession with Slade, he loses face with his team, we won't know for sure if Slade was actually out there or was gone for good with enough hints that won't conform either. Nah, let's have Robin trip balls and somehow get his ass kicked, now that's sophisticated writing, certainly justifies the praise this series gets on a regular basis.

The truth is, anyone can crack under pressure and become worse people for it. Rather than push for all perfect heroes, why not show that they're human like all of us? Or at least provide a good opportunity for a story? It could even lead to a satisfying defeat that sticks with you, or catch you by surprise and easily be fixed. The best examples of that lie with Chapel in Todd McFarlane's Spawn in Home, Bitter Home, where we see a badass killer broken beyond belief, and the Kookabarra in Koala Man, where the clues to his identity are subtle, and the surprise has some weight, and they managed to make a piss joke work with the right context.

But, I'm burying the lead here. Other DC cartoons had explored mental breakdowns, and a big example would be Batman: TAS' Baby Doll, where they're subtle about what's eating the main villain and fueling her obsession, and then it hits us hard by the end of it. There's The Batman's portrayal of Clayface, which of all things that series did, it was twisted in a good way, they certainly committed.. Oh, there's also Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker that sees Robin getting corrupted by the Joker, of course that is ruined by the fact that it turns out Joker planted a chip on Robin that would bring out the Joker personality.

Apparently there's some mandate in DC cartoons where Robin could never become twisted or evil unless there's a valid explanation and it's all just some form of mind control or hallucinogen. If it wasn't gonna happen, why spend so much time cultivating Robin and Slade's relationship if it would lead to something that would either be resolved by the end of an episode or two, why treat it like it has more weight than it would turn out to have? Anything that does happen, whether it be Robin serving Slade or becoming Red X is easily undone after some time. Slade dying is undone after some time. The apocalypse is undone after some time. It feels as though there's little meaning to anything that ever happened in the show, and I say it like that because, for the last time, it is heralded in such a way. If you give any idea that what happens is meaningless, you're left with limited mileage when you watch the episodes again.

At least with Avatar: The Last Airbender, the episodes were essentially a series of different chapters, happening in a certain order to build up to the conclusion of its three books. About the only things I'd still complain about that show is how empty Azula turned out to be as a villain and how they dropped the bombshell about Aang being the last airbender three episodes in when they could've dedicated the whole season to that and have him adjust to his role thereafter, show some more character building, more specifically, I want that as a benefit to that series.

The point behind that is to show events in that series weren't isolated or forgotten about thereafter, where Teen Titans could abandon certain elements at the drop of a hat. Nothing ever sticks to the characters in Teen Titans, as they would gradually or immediately slip back into their usual roles thereafter. Perhaps this is owed to it not being a straightforward action show.

Like, I get it, Teen Titans was made the way it was to capitalize on the growing popularity of anime in the states. A lot of anime series aren't always relegated to following one genre. However, it feels weird when Teen Titans does it, as if they just copied tropes and frameworks verbatim, with little thought to how a story would turn out. That isn't to say you should take my word on this, I could be right, I could be wrong, but this is just how I see the show.

The moments are there, but a lot of the time there isn't any real weight to them, sure, it feels like it but it doesn't really stick. Because Teen Titans is so well engrained in everyone's conscious, I think that contributed to the show's continued presence even years after it ended. They just took an idea and went with it without any thought to how they could go beyond set expectations.

I had gone on with this show without any idea what episode would best sum up my issues with it, but Haunted is a solid contender for representing what I consider to be wrong with this show. If they can't be bothered to put more into an ongoing hero-villain dynamic and just throw in a hokey reason to enable things to be undone by the end, it's a sign that they either don't care, or take viewers for chumps. And it gets to a point where you wonder if these more serious shows have people who genuinely want to tell a story or just seek to play to the crowd with little effort, and Teen Titans is far from the only show to give me that feeling.

The Best Christian Film

 Christian films get a bad rep. It seems no matter what, many attempts either turn out laughable or contemptible, from ultra low budgets to terrible ways of communicating a message, and not helping is the likes of Pure Flix poisoning the well. In the past, you had stuff like the Omega Code, Left Behind and Apocalypse, back when Kirk Cameron still had some dignity, and while those films have little to write home about, they have some appeal, B-movies that can switch things up from what is usually associated with films in those camps.

When it comes to Christian movies that can actually rise above and be considered good, some may immediately turn to The Passion of the Christ, which for the record was helmed by Mel Gibson, a religious man. However, I'm not gonna talk about that movie. Instead, I'm going to discuss a Christian film that's not only enjoyable, but also not incredibly condescending.

2002's Joshua.

Personal Background

As a kid, I went to what amounts to a Christian night school at my old local church, for some reason. It was mostly fun and games, and we even got to watch movies, but no Veggie Tails. I got to watch some weird 90s video I'm currently trying to find the name of, I watched Beginners Bible, which was made by the same company behind Doug, and I watched Joshua.

Clips of this movie are relatively scarce, but thanks to the nature of its release it made it easier to find on streaming, and by that I mean it's on Tubi.

Film Background

Joshua was a 2002 film directed by Jon Purdy, a man whose resume is rather dry, yet interesting. Prior to this he directed two sci-fi horror films. I say that to bring up some irony that has befell the independent film community. In the past we had some awkward family films helmed by directors who were prevalent in the horror and action community, no doubt due to money. I'm not saying Joshua is a victim of this, but I just find it funny how they got a man who worked on genres that are otherwise deemed reprehensible by non-seculars.

I'll give it this, a horror film where Jesus Christ comes down to smite sinners may be a beautiful disaster in the making.

The film was produced by Howard and Karen Baldwin, no relation to Adam Baldwin or the Baldwins. They were the founders of Crusader Entertainment, the film's principal production company and this being their first production. However, weirdly enough their first film would be produced under a non-secular subsidiary. Crusader would rebrand as Bristol Bay Productions in 2003, with their most notable production under that being a Ray Charles biopic, though technically Crusader's last film under that such name was 2005's A Sound of Thunder, and that was only because it was in production before the name change.

Joshua managed to bring in some decent star power. They landed actors like Tony Goldwyn and F. Murray Abraham. Goldywn isn't a major Christian, but ironically he is the president of The Samuel Goldywn Company, they released Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas for the record. F. Murray Abraham however is a relatively devout follower of Christ so I imagine he took immediate interest in the script. Abraham is perhaps known nowadays for appearing in Mythic Quest, only to get fired for sexual misconduct.

Say what you will about Kirk Cameron, at least sexual misconduct isn't a black mark on an already questionable rep.

As for other actors, we have Kurt Fuller, who was in quite a lot of stuff including Ghostbusters II, Wayne's World, Scary Movie, among a hell of a lot of others. There's also Colleen Camp because of her prevalence in a lot of films, those not necessarily Christian. Lastly, I bring up Giancarlo Giannini because they went the extra effort to have most scenes filmed in Rome and have an authentic Italian actor. 

The Film

Joshua follows this basic principle. What if Jesus walked amongst the mortals? The titular Joshua arrives in Auburn, a wood-working artist who would slowly integrate with the others through no divine intervention of his own. This is a display of how kindness and faith can help people through their lives, a simple principle of faith otherwise lost through more devout teachings that would otherwise make people fear god, and that is actually something addressed in this film.

Simply for being a big help to the people, Joshua begins to have a metaphorical hold on the people, best shown when he begins to try and reconstruct a church destroyed in a storm, and gets others to help. Of course there'd be no point without any conflict.

So take a guess, who do you think the villain is gonna be in this? A raging atheist straw-manned to hell and back? A misguided preacher who thinks wrong of Joshua for some reason? Or just someone who sees the worst based on some alarming coincidences?

In this case, it's one Father Tordone. He initially commissions Joshua to craft a wooden carving of St. Peter out of ash, but begins to feel alarmed when he sees that the townsfolk are gathering together to construct the church at Joshua's request, when there wasn't one. Something for nothing. What begins as suspicion, turns to fear as Joshua confronts a conman preacher and restores sight to a blind woman.

I'd like to take a moment to say how much I love this scene, rather than punish the conman, it's done in a compelling way to show what true faith is, and give us a sense of people seeking faith, which is why these cons tend to get good attendance, and of course it's not just a "Preacher man bad" thing like most stabs at religion.

Compounding Tordone's conundrum is a personal conflict with Father Pat, a rather eccentric priest who enjoys fishing and feels he could never live up to his role. He's an all-round likable character, not overdone to the point it feels like scenes with him take you out of anything. Pat begins to identify more with Joshua, and it culminates in him abandoning his role as Tordone holds an intervention against Joshua.

One thing about this intervention is that it shows Tordone's philosophy on god, that he is one to be feared on the grounds of sin. Whereas Joshua presents a more lax perspective, honing in on faith and kindness, and welcoming the spirit, basically saying there is little to fear, though it's something to be seen for itself.

Joshua is also not one to just immediately let dying souls go free, and perhaps this is a way to keep viewers from realizing he is meant to represent Jesus. This is shown when he revives a man whom he befriended earlier on after falling from 40 feet. Although this may also serve as a reason to have Joshua sent to the Vatican, which is what all of this would culminate in.

Tordone would realize that Joshua may in fact be Jesus, and is thus clear to meet the pope, moving him to tears in memories only Jesus may recount, Father Pat has finally earned the confidence he needed to engage with the church-goers, among other happy endings made possible with faith.

What Makes This Great?

The problem with Christian films is that they wear their messages on the sleeve. Many of them seek to paint non-believers as cartoonishly evil, be lazily done or incorporate sermons that more often than not deliberately try to drive people to a certain belief. It's clear these films only have one audience in mind, and they deliver to them for better or worse.

Joshua rises above those films through its simplicity. Referring back to the thesis, what if Jesus walked amongst the mortals? It doesn't seek to portray Jesus as absolutely perfect, but human, and just eager to help people through their problems. He doesn't actively punish or chastise people for how they practice their faith, at most being blunt about not knowing how.

I can understand people taking issue with the performance of miracles, but the point behind that is that those people have strong faith, and Joshua sees it within them, hence why he helps a blind woman visiting a conman's revival tent hoping to be relieved, and why he helps Theo, guy who fell, as he wanted to have the courage to act as a pastor, a good heart preaching the principles Joshua adheres to.

Many Christian films or ideologies portray God as someone or something to be feared, but Joshua believes that God should not be feared, for their hearts and kindness would make all the difference.

If that isn't your speed, we're left with a wholesome story that isn't as saccharine as others. Without the credits this is about less than 90 minutes so it doesn't overstay its welcome. There're some clever lines that aren't painful to listen, the characters, at least the main ones, are well realized and there is a true pay-off to everything.

Also we get a free performance from Third Day, Christian band.

If you have a good story to tell you can forgive the over Christian elements, and I feel this does a good job at that.

Final Thoughts

As a kid I didn't really understand this film, either that or I have to leave the room during more important scenes, but as an adult, I've grown to appreciate this film more and more. There was some genuine effort put into it, for sure.

If you're looking for a Christian film that isn't cheap garbage or by Pure Flix, I think Joshua will be a nice breath of fresh air for you.

It's on Tubi, so check it out while you can: https://tubitv.com/movies/304779/joshua