TMNT: Saturday Morning Adventures #4. Preview and discussion

[Zog The Magnificent]

The main problem I have with the arguments against the '87 show is that all the flaws pointed out are not flaws that are specific to that show. Pointing out voice recording errors, animation errors, recycled plots, etc. is redundant because EVERY show from that era was like that. I mean, sure, there were a few exceptions, but as a general rule? This is just what cartoons were like during this time. So it seems unfair to hold those errors against TMNT specifically since none of those errors are specific to TMNT, in the same way that it would be unfair for a to call a movie from the silent era bad for not having sound, or a movie from before color filming was invented bad for not being in color.

[AlZarkovski]

Originally Posted by neatoman

You don't really provide any evidence here that the FW is still popular. I'm at best seeing a quick burst in interest that quickly fades.

Proof? Here they are:

1. FW TMNT has already received several editions of the complete collection on DVD. People keep buying them. 2k3 has never been released in its entirety. Nickelodeon tried to release some 2k3 DVDs, but they obviously didn't make a profit, so they stopped releasing.

2. Figures from NEKA, Super7 and other companies based on FW are popular and sell very well.

3. Why did you decide that Saturday Morning Adventures wasn't popular? A paperback collection was announced and received the number 1 in the title. This hints that IDW plans to continue the series.

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by AlZarkovski

Proof? Here they are:

1. FW TMNT has already received several editions of the complete collection on DVD. People keep buying them. 2k3 has never been released in its entirety. Nickelodeon tried to release some 2k3 DVDs, but they obviously didn't make a profit, so they stopped releasing.

2. Figures from NEKA, Super7 and other companies based on FW are popular and sell very well.

3. Why did you decide that Saturday Morning Adventures wasn't popular? A paperback collection was announced and received the number 1 in the title. This hints that IDW plans to continue the series.

Could you provide any data that would imply any of this sold well? Anyway, a clear flaw here is that bringing up that Nickelodeon's 2003 DVDs didn't sell well is not an argument in favor of the FW cartoon's popularity and even if it was, we still need to remember here that the full series DVD collection is eleven years old at this point, meaning we are dealing with old data here. The conclusion that STA isn't popular admittedly does not come from any concrete data, but the observation that people on this forum don't seem to care enough about it's existence, nor am I seeing much of a response elsewhere. It is true that the series could be selling really well and we may indeed get more issues, however, keep in mind that the trade was likely always planned and the number 1 label could simply have been done in anticipation that the series may have sold well. It is not a guarantee that we will get more issues.

Originally Posted by Zog The Magnificent

The main problem I have with the arguments against the '87 show is that all the flaws pointed out are not flaws that are specific to that show. Pointing out voice recording errors, animation errors, recycled plots, etc. is redundant because EVERY show from that era was like that. I mean, sure, there were a few exceptions, but as a general rule? This is just what cartoons were like during this time. So it seems unfair to hold those errors against TMNT specifically since none of those errors are specific to TMNT, in the same way that it would be unfair for a to call a movie from the silent era bad for not having sound, or a movie from before color filming was invented bad for not being in color.

I do not exclusively hold FW to this standard, it might seem like it because it's a TMNT forum but I can assure you that it is universal. The problem with comparing these types of shows to the silent era of film making is that color and sound wasn't possible. As in, the technology for making film in color and sound literally did not exist. Even if we point out that some movies lack color and sound after the technology was invented due to budget or artistic reasons, we can still hold them accountable for bad editing or poor lighting, because those are just straight up flaws that don't need to exist and shouldn't exist.

"We need to cut out quality control and pump out 65 episodes as quickly as possible to get that syndication deal" is not an excuse. It's not like it was it literally impossible to slow down production and oversee the quality to prevent these types of problem. Those types of shows shouldn't be excused like there were technical limitations, if you only have the budget and time to make 13 episodes per year, don't try to make over 45.

It is not an unfair standard, saying that it is just comes across as an empty attempt to deflect criticism.

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by Sumac

I hate to break this to you, but do you know that both games were released on more platforms than PC?
...

Please provide data. Is it possible that the game is being played way more on Switch than on PC and totally blows Steam numbers out of the water? Yes, but I need to see it to believe it. Steam is one of biggest storefronts for games and we can generally assume Steam still gives you a good idea of what is being played a lot. You can't just say the game was well liked and leave it at that, it just states that someone somewhere liked it, not how many or if they still play it.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Apparently this "quick burst" has been lasting for the last two years...?
...

If anything, I see that FW TMNT only becoming more popular, especially, with other incarnations being not particularly known or outright garbage.

Two years from? What? Regardless, I'm not talking about various different projects being an indicator of sustained popularity, I'm talking about individual ability to keep interest. If we are talking about Shredder's Revenge specifically, then the data shows that there was a quick burst interest at launch but the number of players dropped drastically, not just from what the initial numbers were (which were mediocre for what can be consider mid-tier releases) but just low period. If Shredder's Revenge is still popular and wasn't just popular in the first two weeks or so, why did the numbers drop so quickly and so low?

Originally Posted by Sumac

Oh no, people can't point out every single episode from the series they've watched who knows when!!

...

I bet most people can't tell you about most episodes of Transformers or Star Trek, but apparently they didn't make a major bump in pop-culture, right?

...

That's not the argument I made, it's pretty much the opposite of the argument I made. The argument wasn't that they should be able to remember most episodes, it was that they should be able to remember a few episodes or at the very least a single one. If the series did leave an impact, then being able to remember at least some details beyond the premise shouldn't be difficult. And yes, if the claim is that Transformers and Star Trek left an impact on those who watched it then they should be able to recall what a single episode. But remember, my argument is just one episode and preferably more than one, not most episodes and definitely not all of them.

Originally Posted by Sumac

OK, there are mistakes no-none denies it.

...

I was talking about venomous and hilarious seething hatred of everything about this cartoon, not only animation.

...

Your response was to me before that post was in reference to a statement I made about the flaws, which in turn had nothing to "venomous" behavior. It's not moving the goal post if you fail to properly respond what I had to say in the first place.

Originally Posted by Sumac

How do you check their relevancy?

...

And about comic book: numbers, care to provide them? The fact they've been made at all is already a sign that FW is much more popular than your pwecious Mirage stuff, sans Last Ronin, which is an exception from the rule.

I've already cited the Steam numbers as in indicator that Shredder's Revenge isn't as popular as is being claimed and you still haven't provided anything to counter that beyond conjecture. I'd also be remissed to point out that what data we do have (albeit not as clear as it used to be) does show that Last Ronin, The Power Rangers crossover and Armageddon Game all register during the months SMA has been selling, while SMA itself does not. Not happy about the data we are getting on comic book sales these days though I must admit. And I never claimed that Mirage is "pwecious" to me.

Originally Posted by Sumac

...

Your arguments are complete crap
...
disjointed combination of theories, without any prove.

What you are responding to here is speculation for alternatives, not arguments. I wanted to demonstrate how factors beyond quality can impact popularity and accessibility.

Originally Posted by Sumac

...

Kids might not have high standards, but they sure can understand when the show is good and when show is crap. With abundance of shows in the 80s it was easier than ever for kids to find something for their liking.

...

Point being there were no shortage of shows and some of them had more interesting concepts and better general premises than TMNT, yet kids flocked to FW Turtles. Now, whine all you want about lack of quality, but with dozens shows on the market wouldn't watch some ****** crap.

...

But TMNT was able to hold attention for what? Almost 6 years, give or take. And apparently according to your dumb hot take, those kids didn't grow up and new kids, who joined TMNTmania later were equally as dumb. And none of the competitors throughout those 6-7 years were able to shatter TMNT power, even more bizarre TMNT rip-offs of 90s.

By the time the shows you cited came along, the fad was already dying down, so it's not like there was in terms of popularity to "shatter". It is also worth noting that the estimated popularity of the show, as in when it reached it's height, is closer to two or three years, not six or seven as claim. That's still enough time to only really apply to a single batch of children. If your argument is the show lasted as long as it did because of sheer popularity alone, I'd like to counter that with the fact that we are talking about a studio that had exactly one show that got popular, which gave them reason to keep it going, even if the viewership had severely dwindled.

More crucially though, let's remember here that most shows had these types of problems (which again, does not mean these problems were excusable).

Originally Posted by Sumac

...

And, no schedules and other stuff, has nothing to do with due to aforementioned reasons.

You are deliberately ignoring the possibility that accessibility and other may still have played a role here. The reason schedules and accessible networks are a legitimate factor to consider here is because not everyone can get every cable network and nobody can watch every show that airs at the same time.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Obvious conclusion of the normal person: FW was a damn fine show for its time ...

You can't just rely on the amount of people who claim to like it, you have to assess the contents of the show itself in order to argue for the quality.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Actually it does, since if all shows were bad, kids won't have reason to stick exclusively to afew of them.
...

Remember that the majority of these shows were and these children didn't have much to compare them to on account that they were children. The "best" out of a hundred bad shows is still a bad show, if you don't have anything better to go by then "least bad" becomes "good".

Originally Posted by Sumac

This nonsense has been disproven above.

No, you haven't. You've just applied an appeal popularity fallacy and coupled it with your own bias.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Not liking something and considering it to be objectively bad are two different things.
...
And, I given that FW TMNT mostly remembered for voice acting and jokes, well, you are in minority. And you've been in minority for the last 30+ years.

...

Animation was passable and writing was exactly which attracted people to that show, which means you are mistaken.

Again, this is just an appeal popularity fallacy, not an actual argument in favor of the quality. And once again, no, the animation is not passable just because the standards were low at the time. And as for the jokes, I'm sorry but they are not funny. You saying that they are funny and insisting that someone else somewhere agrees with you does not make them any funnier.

And since I admitted that I didn't feel like like commenting on the acting or music, I might as well make it clear that I did not claim to have an objective argument against them in the first place, I thought that spoke for itself.

Originally Posted by Sumac

...

You are genuinly unable to figure out, how acting works and how a good perfomance can save disastrous story and directorship. Because, of it, you are obviously can not figure out why dialogues in FW TMNT work, since you obviously just don't see acting as a component of them. You see them as a plain text and this is the core of the problem. You can't understand neither intention nor emotion nor interaction.
...

No that's not really true. The reason I didn't feel like commenting on the voice acting is that if I admitted it's just bog standard generic voice acting that is highly over rated, is because I feared that if I did then someone would start throw out arguments like this. Which is annoying because it's even more difficult to convince someone that the acting they consider to be great is actually rather standard, mostly because I can't really use many objective measures to prove it. I guess that since it happened anyway, I might as let it out that out, not that I'm actually going to attempt to argue for my opinion since people here tend to dismiss objective arguments and using subjective arguments is nearly impossible here.

Originally Posted by Sumac

It is not to say you don't understand it on a mechanical level, it is just there is more to the writing than a story or dialogues. Perfomance and character nuances, all things, which FW TMNT exceled at, matter probably the most, if not more, than a good story. Because, of it you simply can't understand what is going on.
...

I do understand what's going on in the show, I just don't have to rose tinted glasses to excuse the objective problems and I didn't feel like commenting on my more subjective ones with the show because it's way too easy for others to just dismiss them.

[Zog The Magnificent]

Originally Posted by neatoman

I do not exclusively hold FW to this standard, it might seem like it because it's a TMNT forum but I can assure you that it is universal. The problem with comparing these types of shows to the silent era of film making is that color and sound wasn't possible. As in, the technology for making film in color and sound literally did not exist. Even if we point out that some movies lack color and sound after the technology was invented due to budget or artistic reasons, we can still hold them accountable for bad editing or poor lighting, because those are just straight up flaws that don't need to exist and shouldn't exist.

"We need to cut out quality control and pump out 65 episodes as quickly as possible to get that syndication deal" is not an excuse. It's not like it was it literally impossible to slow down production and oversee the quality to prevent these types of problem. Those types of shows shouldn't be excused like there were technical limitations, if you only have the budget and time to make 13 episodes per year, don't try to make over 45.

It is not an unfair standard, saying that it is just comes across as an empty attempt to deflect criticism.

It's not a perfect analogy, I grant you, but the point remains. Whatever they theoretically COULD have done is irrelevant. It's why the cartoons from that era that truly did have effort put into them were all the more special. Because regardless of what was technically possible, the simple fact is that Cartoons just were churned out in mass quantities for the primary purpose of selling toys. You could still end up with something that was entertaining, but it doesn't change the fact that almost no major cartoon all the way up until later in the 90s had any amount of faith in them from the higher ups, who saw them purely in terms of toy sales. They had ham sandwich budgets, deadlines that were too strict, and were outsourced to so many different animations studios, written by so many different people, that quality control just wasn't possible in the same way.

It's pointless to say what COULD have been done because it WASN'T done, not only in practice but in terms of where the industry was at the time. To use another analogy, it's why I have problems with the way people look at the past in general. It's unfair to compare it to the standards of today, because they simply weren't the standards in the past. You have to judge things within their own context. The '87 cartoon's context is the late 80s and 90s, where animation on television wasn't taken seriously by almost everyone, and cartoons as a rule were rushed, shoddily put together productions for the purpose of selling toys. It's not like today, where even the worst cartoons are still technically well put together in general. We judge a bad cartoon differently today. The best cartoon in the 80s would never stand up against even some of the mediocre cartoons today. We judge cartoons more critically today because they CAN be better much more easily. The same can't be said of most of the cartoons from the 80s and 90s, and that includes TMNT.

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by Zog The Magnificent

It's not a perfect analogy, I grant you, but the point remains. Whatever they theoretically COULD have done is irrelevant. It's why the cartoons from that era that truly did have effort put into them were all the more special. Because regardless of what was technically possible, the simple fact is that Cartoons just were churned out in mass quantities for the primary purpose of selling toys. You could still end up with something that was entertaining, but it doesn't change the fact that almost no major cartoon all the way up until later in the 90s had any amount of faith in them from the higher ups, who saw them purely in terms of toy sales. They had ham sandwich budgets, deadlines that were too strict, and were outsourced to so many different animations studios, written by so many different people, that quality control just wasn't possible in the same way.

It's pointless to say what COULD have been done because it WASN'T done, not only in practice but in terms of where the industry was at the time. To use another analogy, it's why I have problems with the way people look at the past in general. It's unfair to compare it to the standards of today, because they simply weren't the standards in the past. You have to judge things within their own context. The '87 cartoon's context is the late 80s and 90s, where animation on television wasn't taken seriously by almost everyone, and cartoons as a rule were rushed, shoddily put together productions for the purpose of selling toys. It's not like today, where even the worst cartoons are still technically well put together in general. We judge a bad cartoon differently today. The best cartoon in the 80s would never stand up against even some of the mediocre cartoons today. We judge cartoons more critically today because they CAN be better much more easily. The same can't be said of most of the cartoons from the 80s and 90s, and that includes TMNT.

The problem is that I can't honestly say rushing a show is excusable just because that's what everyone did, to me that just means everyone lowered their standard. Could they have done better given the unreasonable the episode quota, schedule and budget they were working on? Probably not. Maybe if it was only an overly tight schedule, only too many episodes to make or only a short budget, then they might have been able to make a quality show. But that's really just an admission it was made under unreasonable circumstances, it doesn't mean the show is good just because they couldn't have done better, nor should it be treated like it's a better show than it really is because of it. There might be a kernel of genuine entertainment in there and that may have been enough to entertain the target audience at the time but that's as far as I'm willing to excuse these types of shows.

And... Well, if we admit that the shows from the 80's aren't very good because the production didn't take itself seriously enough to mitigate the problems they were facing and that mediocre cartoons made today are of higher quality, simply the production team does have better quality control and don't attempt to pump out too many episodes for a weak reason... Then isn't that an admission those 80's cartoons really should be dismissed beyond being little more than a time capsule?

[Zog The Magnificent]

Originally Posted by neatoman

The problem is that I can't honestly say rushing a show is excusable just because that's what everyone did, to me that just means everyone lowered their standard. Could they have done better given the unreasonable the episode quota, schedule and budget they were working on? Probably not. Maybe if it was only an overly tight schedule, only too many episodes to make or only a short budget, then they might have been able to make a quality show. But that's really just an admission it was made under unreasonable circumstances, it doesn't mean the show is good just because they couldn't have done better, nor should it be treated like it's a better show than it really is because of it. There might be a kernel of genuine entertainment in there and that may have been enough to entertain the target audience at the time but that's as far as I'm willing to excuse these types of shows.

And... Well, if we admit that the shows from the 80's aren't very good because the production didn't take itself seriously enough to mitigate the problems they were facing and that mediocre cartoons made today are of higher quality, simply the production team does have better quality control and don't attempt to pump out too many episodes for a weak reason... Then isn't that an admission those 80's cartoons really should be dismissed beyond being little more than a time capsule?

I think this is where you and I differ. Are cartoons from the 80s good? Objectively good? No, not really. But I've never thought that they were good, just that they were entertaining and that I liked them. I love Scooby Doo as well, but I'm not going to pretend that the original show was the pinacle of television, because it's not. It's an extremly low-budget, poorly animated, and rudimentary cartoon. But I still like watching it. I still own it on DVD. Same with TMNT '87. I like the cartoon. I have it on DVD. But I don't think it's good. But I know that it's not good going into it, and I know what I'm going to get when I watch it. The thing about 80s cartoons, like I said earlier, is that almost none of them are actually GOOD. Good, as in, well put together. They can still be funny. They can still be entertaining. And, sometimes very rarely, they can actually be clever and well written, held back only by their poor technical qualities. Beast Wars is a great show, but that doesn't mean it's pretty to look at.

Old cartoons from this era are, in my mind, one of the quintessential examples of what people are talking about when they say "take it for what it is." If you go in expecting the works of Shakespearem, you'll be disappointed. If you read any book written in the 50s, you might be offput by the depictions of certain things that might be less palatable today. But if you go into any of those things, including 80s cartoons, knowing that that's what things were like when they came out, and go in knowing what you're going to get, then you can still have a good time and still find legitimate entertainment value from it.

I don't think it's fair to say everyone lowered their standards back in the day. Rather, I think their standards simply hadn't been raised yet. If someone made a cartoon from the 80s like they do in the 80s today, it would be rightly lambasted, because the industry is better than that now. That's also part of the reason why it's so hard to replicate the feeling whenever a modern cartoon does a throwback episode. It's always too clean. The technology has gotten good enough that you just can't emulate the cartoons of the 80s and 90s in the same way anymore. It's always just a little better then what they could do then.

I'm not suggesting that TMNT should be considered any better because the standards were lower at the time, only that it shouldn't be considered any worse considering when it came out and what the landscape of cartoons was at the time. Nor do I think that 80s cartoons should be dismissed as a time capsule of that era. Ultimately, every cartoon is eventually going to be a time capsule of the time it came out. It's happened pretty much every decade in animation. Because, as I've said, I think to dismiss it or condemn it in this way would be unfair. When it comes to works in the past, the standards were different, and if you go into it knowing that, and judge it by the standards of the past, while using it as a contrast for how far we've come today, then I think you can come out of it being genuinely entertained. Make no mistake, there ARE bad cartoons from this era, bad even by the standard of the time, just as well as there are some really good ones from this era. But TMNT isn't any worse then anything else at the time. Maybe (definitely) compared to today, but not then.

[AlZarkovski]

Originally Posted by neatoman

Could you provide any data that would imply any of this sold well? Anyway, a clear flaw here is that bringing up that Nickelodeon's 2003 DVDs didn't sell well is not an argument in favor of the FW cartoon's popularity and even if it was, we still need to remember here that the full series DVD collection is eleven years old at this point, meaning we are dealing with old data here.

The level of sales of figurines and DVDs is not freely available, but there is a very simple proof - if the publication receives a sequel, then it is successful. There were several DVD editions of the FW, which means that the first editions were sold out.

An example from DVD 2k3 was given to compare their sales.

There are now more than 10 figures in each modern series of FW figures. The series continues, which means that they are profitable.

Originally Posted by neatoman

The conclusion that STA isn't popular admittedly does not come from any concrete data, but the observation that people on this forum don't seem to care enough about it's existence, nor am I seeing much of a response elsewhere.

This means that you yourself cannot provide any evidence for your words and simply operate on what you see. The Technodrome Forum and your personal observations are not a representative sample. There are a lot of mentions of SMA and the purchase of these comics in my Twitter and Facebook feed.

Originally Posted by neatoman

It is true that the series could be selling really well and we may indeed get more issues, however, keep in mind that the trade was likely always planned and the number 1 label could simply have been done in anticipation that the series may have sold well. It is not a guarantee that we will get more issues.

If they had originally planned TPB #2, they would have released more than 4 comics. G.I. Joe also has SMA comics, but there is no number 1 in their collection.

Obviously, the decision to continue the series and put the number one in the collection appeared after the sales of the first issue.

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by AlZarkovski

T
This means that you yourself cannot provide any evidence for your words and simply operate on what you see. The Technodrome Forum and your personal observations are not a representative sample. There are a lot of mentions of SMA and the purchase of these comics in my Twitter and Facebook feed.

Well, I guess we can just wait for some concrete data to come in, don't we? It's quite unfortunate that comic sales data is more difficult to get than it used to be.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by AlZarkovski

The level of sales of figurines and DVDs is not freely available, but there is a very simple proof - if the publication receives a sequel, then it is successful. There were several DVD editions of the FW, which means that the first editions were sold out.

An example from DVD 2k3 was given to compare their sales.

There are now more than 10 figures in each modern series of FW figures. The series continues, which means that they are profitable.



This means that you yourself cannot provide any evidence for your words and simply operate on what you see. The Technodrome Forum and your personal observations are not a representative sample. There are a lot of mentions of SMA and the purchase of these comics in my Twitter and Facebook feed.



If they had originally planned TPB #2, they would have released more than 4 comics. G.I. Joe also has SMA comics, but there is no number 1 in their collection.

Obviously, the decision to continue the series and put the number one in the collection appeared after the sales of the first issue.

They're gonna continue past issue 4?

[AlZarkovski]

Full preview.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by AlZarkovski

Full preview.

Now THERE'S a twist!
https://www.comiccrusaders.com/previ...mnt_sma4-pr_7/

April actually gets to use a feather instead of being on the receiving end of it!
Looking at you, Don Turtelli...

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by AlZarkovski

Full preview.

[Zog The Magnificent]

Originally Posted by neatoman

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/32/de...31105cf159.jpg

I'm sorry, is that a Transformer that turns into a microscope? And is he canon?

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Zog The Magnificent

I'm sorry, is that a Transformer that turns into a microscope? And is he canon?

Very much yes.

[Zog The Magnificent]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Very much yes.

And his name is friggin' Perceptor? Man, Transformers sure is goofy sometimes.

[ZariusTwo]

Neatoman's obsession with discrediting the one show that kicked his dog down the corner market is so farcical and repetitive you'd think David Wise was constantly recycling it.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by neatoman

The conclusion that STA isn't popular admittedly does not come from any concrete data, but the observation that people on this forum don't seem to care enough about it's existence, nor am I seeing much of a response elsewhere. It is true that the series could be selling really well and we may indeed get more issues, however, keep in mind that the trade was likely always planned and the number 1 label could simply have been done in anticipation that the series may have sold well. It is not a guarantee that we will get more issues.

How do you want to eat your crow: boiled or fried?

Originally Posted by neatoman

"We need to cut out quality control and pump out 65 episodes as quickly as possible to get that syndication deal" is not an excuse. It's not like it was it literally impossible to slow down production and oversee the quality to prevent these types of problem. Those types of shows shouldn't be excused like there were technical limitations, if you only have the budget and time to make 13 episodes per year, don't try to make over 45.

It is unfair criticism, because, you are holding them up to the standard which never existed in the first place in a context of 80s cartoons.
Also, animation in the West was not treated as a media for the serious stories, which is why Anime was revolutionary at the time - a cartoon, which dare to discuss things, which Western animation doesn't touch or only grazes!!

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Neatoman's obsession with discrediting the one show that kicked his dog down the corner market is so farcical and repetitive you'd think David Wise was constantly recycling it.

The sad thing is that I'm not even trying that hard. It's so easy to point out that the "good" first season makes no sense because the stem of the plot, i.e Krang's deal Shredder to build him a new body, has no solid foundation and just opens up a giant can of worms. The rest just flows so naturally, it's a wonder that so many people are able to just ignore it.

Originally Posted by Sumac

How do you want to eat your crow: boiled or fried?

Well, I've already admitted to the fault in my logic, right there.

Originally Posted by Sumac

It is unfair criticism, because, you are holding them up to the standard which never existed in the first place in a context of 80s cartoons.
Also, animation in the West was not treated as a media for the serious stories, which is why Anime was revolutionary at the time - a cartoon, which dare to discuss things, which Western animation doesn't touch or only grazes!!

It's not unfair because it's a very basic standard, as in the bare minimum. Ever heard of the phrase "Don't bite off more than you can chew"? Pretty sure that was a saying even back then. If you only have the budget and time to make 13 episodes or less, don't make well over 40, it's something that should have been (and in some cases) was understood at the time, even before. I guess it's easy to forget but until 2010, no season of Scooby-Doo exceeded 20 episodes, and that's a series of shows that started before, lasted throughout and continued beyond the 80's and 90's. So it's not even like this wasn't understood at the time.

And I'm not even talking about "deep themes" or anything like that when I'm talking about quality standards, I'm literally just talking about plots not looking like Swiss cheese and the animation not having blatantly obvious errors like depict a mysterious fifth turtle in the first episode.

I'm sorry but... No. It's not about the show's failure as an adaptation or it's tone (though there is a discussion to be had there), it just isn't up to reasonable quality standards, simple as that. It doesn't matter how many little kids loved it back in the day, what it's role is in the franchise's history or if most cartoons at the time were this shoddy. They could have done better, way better and they knew they could have done better, so it just isn't worth holding up on a pedestal.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by neatoman

Please provide data. Is it possible that the game is being played way more on Switch than on PC and totally blows Steam numbers out of the water? Yes, but I need to see it to believe it.

Your argument doesn't make sense. Like at all.

Like, why people buy SR less on traditionally platformer-friendly platforms, compared to PC, which is not particularly favored by people who like old school games?

Originally Posted by neatoman

Steam is one of biggest storefronts for games and we can generally assume Steam still gives you a good idea of what is being played a lot. You can't just say the game was well liked and leave it at that, it just states that someone somewhere liked it, not how many or if they still play it.

Not at all. See above. Beat'em ups more popular on consoles, than on pc, just like fighting games, for example.

Originally Posted by neatoman

Two years from? What? Regardless, I'm not talking about various different projects being an indicator of sustained popularity, I'm talking about individual ability to keep interest.

Given that Shredder's Revenge and Cowabunga Collection were made in the first place and TMNT FW comic book was created at all - there is more than enough prove that interest is there and it grows.

Originally Posted by neatoman

That's not the argument I made, it's pretty much the opposite of the argument I made. The argument wasn't that they should be able to remember most episodes, it was that they should be able to remember a few episodes or at the very least a single one.

Nonsense.
Have you asked everyone who likes FW TMNT about it?

Originally Posted by neatoman

I've already cited the Steam numbers as in indicator that Shredder's Revenge isn't as popular as is being claimed and you still haven't provided anything to counter that beyond conjecture. I'd also be remissed to point out that what data we do have (albeit not as clear as it used to be) does show that Last Ronin, The Power Rangers crossover and Armageddon Game all register during the months SMA has been selling, while SMA itself does not. Not happy about the data we are getting on comic book sales these days though I must admit. And I never claimed that Mirage is "pwecious" to me.

And, yet, somehow bot Last Ronin and SMA got continuation.
Go figure. Maybe your numbers are off?
And I've already explained about Steam.

Originally Posted by neatoman

What you are responding to here is speculation for alternatives, not arguments. I wanted to demonstrate how factors beyond quality can impact popularity and accessibility.

So, you've demonstrated you are full of hot air.
Not that we haven't figured it out already.

Originally Posted by neatoman

By the time the shows you cited came along, the fad was already dying down, so it's not like there was in terms of popularity to "shatter". It is also worth noting that the estimated popularity of the show, as in when it reached it's height, is closer to two or three years, not six or seven as claim. That's still enough time to only really apply to a single batch of children. If your argument is the show lasted as long as it did because of sheer popularity alone, I'd like to counter that with the fact that we are talking about a studio that had exactly one show that got popular, which gave them reason to keep it going, even if the viewership had severely dwindled.

Bulldang.
If show was not profitable they would had immediately reduced budget and ultimately closed it, which had happened few years down the line. But beginning of the 90s so even MORE episodes being produced, not to mention movies.

Originally Posted by neatoman

You are deliberately ignoring the possibility that accessibility and other may still have played a role here. The reason schedules and accessible networks are a legitimate factor to consider here is because not everyone can get every cable network and nobody can watch every show that airs at the same time.

Lame excuses.

Originally Posted by neatoman

You can't just rely on the amount of people who claim to like it, you have to assess the contents of the show itself in order to argue for the quality.

So, basically I should take opinion of one obsessed complainer (i.e. you) against bunch of people who enjoyed that show and still appreciated it?
Not gonna happen, dude.

Originally Posted by neatoman

Remember that the majority of these shows were and these children didn't have much to compare them to on account that they were children.

We were through this argument.
It was stupid weeks ago - it is stupid now. Do better.

Originally Posted by neatoman

No, you haven't. You've just applied an appeal popularity fallacy and coupled it with your own bias.

At the very least I have actual prove on my side, as opposed to your biased hot takes, which only have what...your worthless bias? You have nothing in your corner dude. Just your seething hatred of FW TMNT and nothing else.
Chill out and let it go.

Originally Posted by neatoman

Again, this is just an appeal popularity fallacy, not an actual argument in favor of the quality. And once again, no, the animation is not passable just because the standards were low at the time. And as for the jokes, I'm sorry but they are not funny. You saying that they are funny and insisting that someone else somewhere agrees with you does not make them any funnier.

And since I admitted that I didn't feel like like commenting on the acting or music, I might as well make it clear that I did not claim to have an objective argument against them in the first place, I thought that spoke for itself.

As I said before shake crust from your pants.
You give impressions of someone who is really sad and obsessed that others are happy.

Originally Posted by neatoman

No that's not really true. The reason I didn't feel like commenting on the voice acting is that if I admitted it's just bog standard generic voice acting that is highly over rated, is because I feared that if I did then someone would start throw out arguments like this. Which is annoying because it's even more difficult to convince someone that the acting they consider to be great is actually rather standard, mostly because I can't really use many objective measures to prove it. I guess that since it happened anyway, I might as let it out that out, not that I'm actually going to attempt to argue for my opinion since people here tend to dismiss objective arguments and using subjective arguments is nearly impossible here.

Obviously you can't use "objective" arguments, because, you have no objective arguments.
You won't convince anyone, because, all you have hatred. Irrational hatred.

Originally Posted by neatoman

I do understand what's going on in the show, I just don't have to rose tinted glasses to excuse the objective problems and I didn't feel like commenting on my more subjective ones with the show because it's way too easy for others to just dismiss them.

You don't.
You are a boring crusty panted guy, who hates decent show from the past for no reason. Also, yes, if all you have is boring nonsense "I don't like" it naturally would be dismissed.