That's the real tweet sent out by the voice actor for Peanut, a character from the new Disney show Pickle and Peanut, in response to cartoon critics who had several complaints about the show. The main one of these criticisms is that it is, for lack of nicer terms, the show's release on Disney is similar to throwing a rotten egg on top of a fillet mignon.
Yes, the Disney channel has had some flops over the years, but much like Cartoon Network, a wave of talented and creative shows has been slowly pulling at out of stupidity and towards a new golden age. Shows like Adventure Time and Gravity Falls have had a massive impact on the medium and have inspired cartoonists to create some really good shows. And then there's Pickle and Peanut.
It's a bit sad when you can get the same effects the animators of Pickle and Peanut use by using photoshop to doodle some eyes on a stock image of a peanut. It's even sadder when you realize that this is on the channel that hosts Star Vs. The Forces Of Evil.
As Dave Barry once wrote, sometimes there is a story that needs it's own article. And for a critic such as myself, the idea of a professional voice actor on a terrible cartoon reacting in such a way is a gift from above. It gives me an opportunity to not only point out the stupidity of the situation, but to say a few things about the bad cartoon industry. From the interviews, posts, and comparisons, I've been able to divine a few basic theories about the people who make bad cartoons. Specifically.....
4: They Have No Clue How To Handle Criticism
--------------------------------------------------------------
No matter what. every show or film will at some point face criticism. It's just a part of the industry. Even if a fantastic show does something slightly out of the ordinary, it's bound to have some backlash. The simple act of giving your character wings can destroy an entire fan base. So, what do you do to get the lost back?
Simple, you make it better. You listen to the critics, and buff your show accordingly. Remember the huge leap between Shrek and Shrek 2? That was a great example of this. by listening to the critics and adapting to their needs, shows can be better and offer more widespread appeal. Or, you could just take the Teen Titans Go (Otherwise known as Show Made Exclusively To Spite Me) route and make an entire episode trying to insult the people who want more from them. This is ironic, as the people it's trying to insult probably know more about the source material than the writers themselves.
I could go on and on about how much I dislike the new show, but I'm writing enough as it is. Let's just take a look at their argument.
According to the episode "The Return of Slade" (which had absolutely no Slade whatsoever- I can't tell if that's a good thing or a bad thing), the main issue comes from the critic's refusal to grow up. As the show believes, we are forgetting what made the show cool to us in the first place and letting nostalgia cloud our vision. Apparently, the threat of a nostalgic feeling and better shows is enough to drive the show's creators to anger. Enough to base an entire episode as a thinly-veiled insult rather than, I dunno, put more effort into the show itself.
It's always a load of fun to see reactions like this, but even better to witness in person. Ironically, the character of a person can affect how people see their cartoons. I recently had a chance to talk with a storyboard editor (Luke Ski, of Mighty Magiswords) and found him a kind, if somewhat shy person. And after talking with him (and getting a drawing of Vambre, of course), I do see how his sense of comedy works into the development of his show. In a way, the behavior of a person ties directly into the behavior of their characters. And if we reverse this (in saying that the characters are representations of the people who made them), it's fair to say that the humor and characters from these new series take much of their juvenile acts directly from those who made them. And from what I've seen, it looks like the theory remains true.
3: They Don't Understand Simple Jobs
------------------------------------------------
From the three episodes I gave Pickle and Peanut (my "trial run", if you will), I was able to discover that they hold steady jobs in a grocery store. As a guy who works in a grocery store myself (Safeway represent), I can firmly say that the show's depiction of store work is full of lies.
To date, the most trouble experienced by me and my co-workers came in the forms of major scoldings and reports, usually with very stern looks and extra shopping cart duty. These punishments have, in the past, been results of:
-Clocking in five minutes early,
-Stepping into the break room to take a sip of cola before resuming duties,
-Attempting to have a discussion about Dragon Ball Z during a slow afternoon with a fellow clerk,
-Starting a petition to ban Rob Schneider films from being stocked (If we're a quality store, why do we have these?), and my personal favorite,
-Taking the handicap motorized cart for 'joyrides' in the parking lot.
These are all deserving of major outbursts by managers, but pale in comparison to the activities partaken by Pickle and Peanut. They steal company property, damage the store, and are directly responsible for practically all mishaps involved in the show. Many of these mishaps come directly from two sources: the main idiots and the grocery store's boss himself, who really should know better.
Most bad cartoons seem to fall into the same category of not portraying basic jobs: they feel as if the mere act of work is boring, and so need to make as much happen as possible to make up for it through the bumbling errors of the characters. Don't get me wrong, it is a good thing to build excitement (Regular Show takes it's boring workplace setting and has it slowly build up beyond the characters' control), but at least attempt to portray the place realistically. If people think working at a grocer is like Pickle and Peanut portrays, they're going to be mighty surprised. Not because of the strict bosses and sometimes exhausting work, but because the shopping cart who sings KISS that we have in one of our training videos is more amusing than anything in the show. (On a side note, I'm now anticipating a spin-off of nothing but Gene Simmons pushing carts around a parking lot for thirty minutes. It'd still be better than Kiss Meets The Phantom Of The Park.
2: Deep Down, They Feel Like They Are Doing The Right Thing
---------------------------
The thing a lot of people forget about critics is that they all have their own opinions, and these can often clash with the opinions of people- including themselves. I can't count how many times that I've ended up going back on my own opinion just as new reasoning comes to life. Factors like age and personal experience can definitely sway an opinion (When I was younger, I hated Where The Wild Things Are as a film. Now, It's one of my absolute favorites just because I grew up and now understand what it represented.), as can any personal effort portrayed. The idea that effort exerted by people should have a direct effect on the finished product's quality is a well-respected one.
The prime thought process of the bad cartoon comes from the effort they put in and how it resonates with the target audience.
The way they see it, because some kids have poor attention spans, it would be easier to just make something short and lackluster to snag their attention while saving the better material for adults. This way, the younger demographic is entertained while the older ones have some time away. This makes sense, right?
Only it doesn't. What's the point of producing a cartoon that kids and adults will watch together without any effort? There's a fine difference between holding attention and giving enjoyment. and people need to understand this.
But, according to the creators of bad cartoons, there's some sort of leniency to be given when a kid's show is bad. See, in their minds, kid's attention spans don't deserve the same attention that adults do. This means that they feel they are doing a good thing making sub-par animation. In some respects, I can understand where they're coming from. But.....
1: They Are Not
----------------------
Where the makers of the cartoons feel they are doing a good thing in limiting the time spent on their products, it's safe to say they aren't. It may seem like complete bias (I was raised as a Teen Titans kid), but there's a huge difference in quality in most of this animation.
You want my final opinion? Here we go.
Jimmy Pemberton, you slipped up. There's a difference between retaliation and just plain stupidity. And insulting the people who only want to make your show worth watching falls into the latter category. You want to respond like this? Okay. Just don't go blaming us if Pickle and Peanut goes down the garbage chute.
