I can't imagine why a show would set out to limit its audience that way, not when the better goal is multi-quadrant. And especially when they are sitting on a piece of proven content that has a built-in adult audience. Why leave those viewers- the ones most likely to follow-through and buy your content on iTunes or Blu-Ray- as so much money on the table?
The more likely scenario- especially with the prime time slot and the sort of money being spent- is that they are at least trying to go for a wider target. If they weren't, then why spend money appearing and promoting at cons? Why would the creators appear on CGS and your show? To reach all the seven year olds that listen?
A show that succeeds in pleasing (and this being chosen by) an audience of parents and children (giving the advertisers a situation where a child watching with a parent the opportunity to immediately point to a product and say 'I want that') is the ideal target. It is also a fact that in prime time adults are more often in charge of the remote than kids.
As for whether or not they knew it was the last episode- sure, they may not have known it was the very last. But they would have known it was the last one ordered. And many shows, when they know they are at the end of their pickup might not go for a big The End, but may go for something that could work as an ending.
Again- when one complains, it is because one hoped something would be better. Again, with some strong examples of past shows (such as Timm's own Batman: The Animated Series) to hold up as examples, it is so wrong for some viewers to have hoped for better?
Imagine anything you like David, but that's the reality, to the disappointment of many older animated JLA fans, among other shows cancelled "before their time" .
Batman The TAS was 20 years ago, and the business side of animation has changed since then. It's an outdated argument to lean on. Also GL and YJ stopped being prime time shows pretty early on in their runs.
Hell even when networks do get the Y7 numbers they want, it's still rare that any Y7 cartoons get more than 52 eps produced.
Batman The Brave and Bold did great, but it still wrapped up after only 65 eps, and now it's time for the new Batman show.
Yes- the business has changed since then. One of the changes is that there is also an older fan base there waiting (at cons, online, on Netflix, on ITunes) to appeal to as well as the kids home on a weekday afternoon. Which is why invalidating an adult viewers complaint about one of these shows with 'but it is not for you, it is for the seven year olds' doesn't make sense. It is an argument that hasn't aged well, like suggesting that mainstream comics are still being made for 12 year olds and adult readers with complaints shouldn't gripe because they are not the target audience.
Yes, the business has changed since Batman TAS- now the adult part of the audience is part of the picture. Again, I'm not saying that their needs should be served to the exclusion of the kids. But a great show succeeds at pleasing both audiences. It sounds like GL didn't do that. Not sure why that complaint is therefore so noteworthy.
I can't imagine why a show would set out to limit its audience that way, not when the better goal is multi-quadrant. And especially when they are sitting on a piece of proven content that has a built-in adult audience. Why leave those viewers- the ones most likely to follow-through and buy your content on iTunes or Blu-Ray- as so much money on the table?
The more likely scenario- especially with the prime time slot and the sort of money being spent- is that they are at least trying to go for a wider target. If they weren't, then why spend money appearing and promoting at cons? Why would the creators appear on CGS and your show? To reach all the seven year olds that listen?
A show that succeeds in pleasing (and this being chosen by) an audience of parents and children (giving the advertisers a situation where a child watching with a parent the opportunity to immediately point to a product and say 'I want that') is the ideal target. It is also a fact that in prime time adults are more often in charge of the remote than kids.
As for whether or not they knew it was the last episode- sure, they may not have known it was the very last. But they would have known it was the last one ordered. And many shows, when they know they are at the end of their pickup might not go for a big The End, but may go for something that could work as an ending.
Again- when one complains, it is because one hoped something would be better. Again, with some strong examples of past shows (such as Timm's own Batman: The Animated Series) to hold up as examples, it is so wrong for some viewers to have hoped for better?
Imagine anything you like David, but that's the reality, to the disappointment of many older animated JLA fans, among other shows cancelled "before their time" .
Batman The TAS was 20 years ago, and the business side of animation has changed since then. It's an outdated argument to lean on. Also GL and YJ stopped being prime time shows pretty early on in their runs.
Hell even when networks do get the Y7 numbers they want, it's still rare that any Y7 cartoons get more than 52 eps produced.
Batman The Brave and Bold did great, but it still wrapped up after only 65 eps, and now it's time for the new Batman show.
Yes- the business has changed since then. One of the changes is that there is also an older fan base there waiting (at cons, online, on Netflix, on ITunes) to appeal to as well as the kids home on a weekday afternoon. Which is why invalidating an adult viewers complaint about one of these shows with 'but it is not for you, it is for the seven year olds' doesn't make sense. It is an argument that hasn't aged well, like suggesting that mainstream comics are still being made for 12 year olds and adult readers with complaints shouldn't gripe because they are not the target audience.
Yes, the business has changed since Batman TAS- now the adult part of the audience is part of the picture. Again, I'm not saying that their needs should be served to the exclusion of the kids. But a great show succeeds at pleasing both audiences. It sounds like GL didn't do that. Not sure why that complaint is therefore so noteworthy.
The argument may not have aged well, but the argument, unfortunately, remains. It remains because those who make it, make it because they believe it and they're not really looking much further than that point. Nor care.
I have been reading comics and watching cartoons for 40 years. I got started on the DC Filmation shorts, and have watched everything from Cindy Brady meeting Superman on the Brady Kids to The Dark Knight Returns Part 2. I have never loved an animated show like I loved Young Justice. Greg Weisman, the producer, is the real deal. He created Gargoyles and the Spectacular Spider-Man. I love his work! I would have thought that YJ was great just because he was involved. The fact that it featured a DC Universe that was closer to the classic version, as opposed to the New 52, didn't hurt. I'm not a New 52 basher, when it began I was actually on my local news talking it up. However, the treatment of the Titans characters, and the loss of legacy elements had me craving an outlet. YJ provided that. It also featured my all time favorite character Dick Grayson, and awesome animation. I will miss this show like crazy.
Now, there are a couple factors at play when it comes to the ending of Green Lantern and Young Justice. One, the audience Cartoon Network wants is a Y 7 one. It is awesome if it gets a broader viewership, but older folks are not what they crave (at least at this time slot). Two, Weisman and the other producers made a challenging show with subplots, dozens of supporting characters, and dark themes. This is to be lauded, but this comes with risks. Three, the shows had good to great ratings, and loads of critical acclaim. Four, the network yanked both shows off the air for months at a time (once without warning- to even the producers). Five, all the shows were in final production when the ax fell, so little could be changed. Six, the producers are still hoping to somehow come back. There is a video on YouTube of the producers of both shows asking fans to watch reruns, buy stuff, talk them up online, order DVDs, download episodes from iTunes, etc. They are even floating the idea of a Veronica Mars style Kickstarter. As Weisman points out, Warner Brothers (who owns the shows) gave Veronica Mars the go ahead, so you never know. Seven, the toys for both shows did not sell. No joke, this is THE main reason they are not on the air. There are a ton of reasons why the toys were not purchased (from the lackluster sales of the Ryan Reynolds movie to weak character selections in the waves), but many stores would not stock them. The producer of GL even mentions K-Mart on the video. It's funny that growing up, we all heard that cartoons were nothing but a glorified toy ad. Now, they really want them to be. Still I live in hope.Until then I will rewatch what we got, and wait for Weisman's next project.
I'm contributing to the cycle I hate but it seems anytime a post goes up that even has a whiff of criticism of the Geeks, that forum member gets lectured or condescended to. I love the give and take of the forum but sometimes the opposition party gets drowned in a chorus of yes men. Wordballlon's shot at Geeks was valid and telling him to have someone "look over" his posts is contrary to what we should expect of an open minded conversation. Everybody has an opinion but it gets discouraging to see the minority opinions continually ridiculed for expressing it if it conflicts with what one of the Geeks have said in an episode. The Geeks can say something we don't agree with. Don't tell me its unnecessary to call them on it.
I think the Wordballoon posts have a recurring theme. As mentioned above, I am not doubting there is some truth in Wordballoon's initial post. I think (unfortunately) there is a pattern of posting more criticism (some nitpicking) then positive feedback. That's not to say the show (and hosts) only want people posting/saying good things about the show (or hosts). In fact, some of us don't care either way. I have, however, found the friend who is mostly negative about everything and seems to mostly contribute negative comments gets more and more stifled or invited to the get-togethers less and less.
I think (and this is purely based on my own assessment) the egress stems from the different mission statements of the two shows. John seems to run his as more of a professional media outlet that holds itself accountable for the information presented. CGS is more of a hobby, friendly past time the guys enjoy doing and don't take themselves too seriously; nothing fancy, nothing professional. I think sometimes CGS gets crammed into another cookie cutter that isn't what the hosts see themselves as.
M.
I have no dog in the race in regards to Wordballoon's agenda. My observation was about Rebis' defense of the Geeks at the expense of Worballoon's observation. I have said many times that I believe the Geeks do not solicit or even want that type of sycophantic defense of their opinions by forum members. I am on the same page with you Matt, in regards to this. I want the podcast to be "nothing fancy, nothing professional", I just hate the notion that Rebis post seems to espouse; An opinion contrary to a Geek's should be edited and/or silenced. But again I do not believe the Geeks want that, I just think the collective "we" get carried away and are a lot less welcoming to contrarian opinions. There are many examples on this forum of that but Rebis' comment just jumped out as a bit unforgiving.
I am a huge, huge fan of Word Balloon. To say it is one of my favorite podcasts, would be an understatement. I love hearing right from the creators themselves. I also enjoy that when John interviews, he employs the perspective of comics history. As he has said, when it comes to reboots, this isn't our first rodeo. He understands comics are cyclical, and need to be around for other generations. This is a view I share. I always look at the long game, no matter how upset I might get at books in the moment. I'm glad John brings on older writers like Marty Pasko, because I crave the perspective of history.
Now, of course the Geek Speak guys have conducted tons of great interviews over the years. However, the strength of this show comes from them giving THEIR perspective. I'll admit, it can be frustrating when their views don't match mine, but I'm still a fan. I may only have a post or two, but I have listened to nearly every episode. I see this program as a group of friends, and we get to listen in. Now, I have been to my local comic shop, and heard conversations and views that were so far off the mark, that I want to tackle the people involved. Same thing happens when I listen to CGS sometimes. But, it's ok, because you have not set your selves up as authorities. I always loathed Wizard Magazine proclaiming which character could beat another, what was cool to read, etc. because for a short while they had real sway. The CGS guys are just humble fans, and they don't always agree with what is "good". My favorite episodes are the Spotlights, when Chris guests, because I do love my history.
Both podcasts are a treat, but both give me very different experiences.
In response to Shroud above: Rebis commented on the "It's one thing for uneducated fans making complaints like this, but frankly you guys have been at covering this stuff far too long to have these kind of uninformed complaints" line. Rebis wasn't defending the guys from a contrary opinion, he was defending the guys from Wordballoon's view on how they should, in essence, approach a topic or thought.
Frankly, I'd rather listen to thoughts that come from passion, reaction and personal experience to material over "don't want to piss off the fact checkers" and "I shall only speak using what I've learned from others".
Loved the show. I can agree to disagree with the esteemed Jamie D on his views for Young Justice and Green Lantern. I thought both had great finales and I was quite satisfied with both of them and both shows had me wanting more but that's just my two cents and one that differs from fan to fan but I loved both shows and will miss them both.
As for @Pants, welcome to the TARDIS. I remember watching classic Who when I was younger and then somehow just getting out of it for awhile and then getting back into the franchise with the new series. You're in for a wild ride. One bit of advice. When you finish the first series and go onto the second series, if you watch the second series on DVD, there is a special video in the extra content section that would you should probably watch first as it's a special look at the 10th Doctor that was filmed for a British organization called "Children In Need" and it takes place between the last episode of the first series and the Christmas Invasion episode which launches the second series. It's pretty good and about 7 minutes long. They also did that with a special that takes place between the 3rd and 4th series. They are fun and worth watching. Enjoy your journey with the Doctor. It's a lot of fun.
For @ShaneKelly, those Doctor Who specials that feature one Doctor story of the classic series is being showed the last Sunday of every month so be on the lookout for the 3rd Doctor soon. Also, if you go to audible.com, they have a lot of Doctor Who audio stories including lost episodes that are only available in audio format. They have a lot of audio dramas of the second Doctor with narration from Frazer Hines (Jamie McCrimmon) that are amazing. Not to mention they have audio exclusive stories with the 10th Doctor read by Tennent. Lots of great stories for Doctor who at Audible.
I'm contributing to the cycle I hate but it seems anytime a post goes up that even has a whiff of criticism of the Geeks, that forum member gets lectured or condescended to. I love the give and take of the forum but sometimes the opposition party gets drowned in a chorus of yes men. Wordballlon's shot at Geeks was valid and telling him to have someone "look over" his posts is contrary to what we should expect of an open minded conversation. Everybody has an opinion but it gets discouraging to see the minority opinions continually ridiculed for expressing it if it conflicts with what one of the Geeks have said in an episode. The Geeks can say something we don't agree with. Don't tell me its unnecessary to call them on it.
I think the Wordballoon posts have a recurring theme. As mentioned above, I am not doubting there is some truth in Wordballoon's initial post. I think (unfortunately) there is a pattern of posting more criticism (some nitpicking) then positive feedback. That's not to say the show (and hosts) only want people posting/saying good things about the show (or hosts). In fact, some of us don't care either way. I have, however, found the friend who is mostly negative about everything and seems to mostly contribute negative comments gets more and more stifled or invited to the get-togethers less and less.
I think (and this is purely based on my own assessment) the egress stems from the different mission statements of the two shows. John seems to run his as more of a professional media outlet that holds itself accountable for the information presented. CGS is more of a hobby, friendly past time the guys enjoy doing and don't take themselves too seriously; nothing fancy, nothing professional. I think sometimes CGS gets crammed into another cookie cutter that isn't what the hosts see themselves as.
M.
I have no dog in the race in regards to Wordballoon's agenda. My observation was about Rebis' defense of the Geeks at the expense of Worballoon's observation. I have said many times that I believe the Geeks do not solicit or even want that type of sycophantic defense of their opinions by forum members. I am on the same page with you Matt, in regards to this. I want the podcast to be "nothing fancy, nothing professional", I just hate the notion that Rebis post seems to espouse; An opinion contrary to a Geek's should be edited and/or silenced. But again I do not believe the Geeks want that, I just think the collective "we" get carried away and are a lot less welcoming to contrarian opinions. There are many examples on this forum of that but Rebis' comment just jumped out as a bit unforgiving.
I can confirm the guys aren't soliciting forum members to "fight the battles." Unfortunately, I didnt express my point as eloquently as Pete just did.
SOME of John's critiques seem to be more based on the style used for Wordballoon (more pro media out) vs the style used on CGS. Its like 60 minutes critiquing TMZ for their presentation based on the news outlet's style. NOT saying John hasn't made valid critiques in the past. I think that is what rubs other posters thin.
Though, in this thread I did question his loaded use of "countless," but that's based on how attorneys have used specific words to paint me into a corner.
Regarding these shows hitting a Y7 audience - Adult fans of these shows are a tiny portion of the audience. We're insignificant. Sure, the creators can and do give us some fanservice, but we're not the priority.
Regarding the Word Balloon criticism - I came here to say a lot of the same stuff. A lot of the reviews lately have been largely, "The show/comic didn't tell the story I wanted/expected and I was disappointed." Of course, when it IS the story you expected, the criticism is that the show was predictable.
Jamie was complaining that the Blue Lanterns weren't in the final battle. It was established earlier in the seasons that Blue Lanterns power up Manhunters too. They would have been counterproductive in the fight. Red Lanterns and Zamarons are in frontier space, that's REALLY far away and they don't have quick transportation (Star Sapphire teleportation only works to get true loves together). You didn't seen Sinestro, but there were hundreds of GLs, he was probably there. Larfleeze couldn't be counted on; did you really get that from the trio's interaction with him?
Regarding these shows hitting a Y7 audience - Adult fans of these shows are a tiny portion of the audience. We're insignificant. Sure, the creators can and do give us some fanservice, but we're not the priority.
I agree the younger viewers should be the priority, and are likely the larger target. My point was only that they are not exclusively the target. When a show can also entertain the adult viewers- including the adults parents, who at the end of the day are the prime influencers on what will be chosen for their kids, and what merchandise will be bought for their kids- then that is an example of succeeding and selling to multiple audiences.
I agree with you that the kids should be the priority. But a show would be foolish to not at least try to aim for a wider audience than JUST them.
You know, I gotta agree with Jamie D. The more I think about it, the more I think an epic battle with the Lanterns that we've already seen would have been awesome. While we haven't seen the yellow Lanterns, we have seen the raw yellow power in certain episodes. It would have been cool to see Sinestro try to harness it in this episode. Even if it was like a small moment. I still liked the finale. Could it have been better? Sure. Did Jamie tell us what he didn't like? Of course and you know what? I love that. I listen to hear Jamie go on about his rants or raves because he is telling me his thoughts and feelings as a fan and that is why this podcast is my favorite when it comes to these topics. The passion for the medium. I want to know what these guys think and I want them to tell me what they think without the filters. I liked Word Balloon although it's a bit long at times but it's a different animal and John goes about his critiques differently and that's fine because it works for his show. Comic Geek Speak is different and I expect these reviews from Jamie just like what I heard. I may not agree with it but I want these guys to be who they are. That's what makes the show great and that's why I listen to i.
Regarding these shows hitting a Y7 audience - Adult fans of these shows are a tiny portion of the audience. We're insignificant. Sure, the creators can and do give us some fanservice, but we're not the priority.
I agree the younger viewers should be the priority, and are likely the larger target. My point was only that they are not exclusively the target. When a show can also entertain the adult viewers- including the adults parents, who at the end of the day are the prime influencers on what will be chosen for their kids, and what merchandise will be bought for their kids- then that is an example of succeeding and selling to multiple audiences.
I agree with you that the kids should be the priority. But a show would be foolish to not at least try to aim for a wider audience than JUST them.
Okay. Let's be more specific then. We're REALLY talking about catering to adult comic fans in these shows. Adult comic fans with kids are a TINY portion of the viewing audience compared to kids and/or adults in general.
Let's be serious here. We're not talking about a show being too kiddie/adult. I hated Marvel Superhero Squad. It was far too juvenile for me, so I didn't watch it. What the Geeks were really complaining about was that the show didn't do exactly what they wanted. A kids show adapting a 50+ year old comic property is NEVER going to tell the exact story everyone wants.
Regarding these shows hitting a Y7 audience - Adult fans of these shows are a tiny portion of the audience. We're insignificant. Sure, the creators can and do give us some fanservice, but we're not the priority.
I agree the younger viewers should be the priority, and are likely the larger target. My point was only that they are not exclusively the target. When a show can also entertain the adult viewers- including the adults parents, who at the end of the day are the prime influencers on what will be chosen for their kids, and what merchandise will be bought for their kids- then that is an example of succeeding and selling to multiple audiences.
I agree with you that the kids should be the priority. But a show would be foolish to not at least try to aim for a wider audience than JUST them.
Okay. Let's be more specific then. We're REALLY talking about catering to adult comic fans in these shows. Adult comic fans with kids are a TINY portion of the viewing audience compared to kids and/or adults in general.
Let's be serious here. We're not talking about a show being too kiddie/adult. I hated Marvel Superhero Squad. It was far too juvenile for me, so I didn't watch it. What the Geeks were really complaining about was that the show didn't do exactly what they wanted. A kids show adapting a 50+ year old comic property is NEVER going to tell the exact story everyone wants.
Well, of course, no show is going to do everything you want. That is true when you are seven as well as forty. And I'm not saying it is fair to expect that it should. What I argued against is that a complaint about this show by an adult comic fan is automatically invalid. Especially when- during the time this specific show was on the promo circuit at cons and doing interviews- they kept touting all the things in the animated series that were from the comics.
So if comic fan viewers (of any age) had an expectation that a story might play out the way it did in the comics, it is not like DC Entertainment did not have some part in building that expectation.
Do I think that 'did it do what I expected?' is the best metric for judging something? No. But it is not an invalid or uninformed response, either. That's all.
Regarding these shows hitting a Y7 audience - Adult fans of these shows are a tiny portion of the audience. We're insignificant. Sure, the creators can and do give us some fanservice, but we're not the priority.
I agree the younger viewers should be the priority, and are likely the larger target. My point was only that they are not exclusively the target. When a show can also entertain the adult viewers- including the adults parents, who at the end of the day are the prime influencers on what will be chosen for their kids, and what merchandise will be bought for their kids- then that is an example of succeeding and selling to multiple audiences.
I agree with you that the kids should be the priority. But a show would be foolish to not at least try to aim for a wider audience than JUST them.
Okay. Let's be more specific then. We're REALLY talking about catering to adult comic fans in these shows. Adult comic fans with kids are a TINY portion of the viewing audience compared to kids and/or adults in general.
Let's be serious here. We're not talking about a show being too kiddie/adult. I hated Marvel Superhero Squad. It was far too juvenile for me, so I didn't watch it. What the Geeks were really complaining about was that the show didn't do exactly what they wanted. A kids show adapting a 50+ year old comic property is NEVER going to tell the exact story everyone wants.
Exactly , and shame on me I guess abd those who agree for thinking the CGS hosts don't understand that, especially given how much they have episodes about animation subjects.
Pants is on the front line of seeing how badly GL toys do, Murd can rattle off VO actors will ease , and again there have been guests who come from these shows who give many behind the scene details , but the basics of who these shows are made for and the simple production details are a mystery?
Regarding these shows hitting a Y7 audience - Adult fans of these shows are a tiny portion of the audience. We're insignificant. Sure, the creators can and do give us some fanservice, but we're not the priority.
I agree the younger viewers should be the priority, and are likely the larger target. My point was only that they are not exclusively the target. When a show can also entertain the adult viewers- including the adults parents, who at the end of the day are the prime influencers on what will be chosen for their kids, and what merchandise will be bought for their kids- then that is an example of succeeding and selling to multiple audiences.
I agree with you that the kids should be the priority. But a show would be foolish to not at least try to aim for a wider audience than JUST them.
Okay. Let's be more specific then. We're REALLY talking about catering to adult comic fans in these shows. Adult comic fans with kids are a TINY portion of the viewing audience compared to kids and/or adults in general.
Let's be serious here. We're not talking about a show being too kiddie/adult. I hated Marvel Superhero Squad. It was far too juvenile for me, so I didn't watch it. What the Geeks were really complaining about was that the show didn't do exactly what they wanted. A kids show adapting a 50+ year old comic property is NEVER going to tell the exact story everyone wants.
Exactly , and shame on me I guess abd those who agree for thinking the CGS hosts don't understand that, especially given how much they have episodes about animation subjects.
Pants is on the front line of seeing how badly GL toys do, Murd can rattle off VO actors will ease , and again there have been guests who come from these shows who give many behind the scene details , but the basics of who these shows are made for and the simple production details are a mystery?
So when the behind the scenes people come on CGS or your show. . . who are they trying to reach? If it is a basic fact that these shows are being made ONLY for the seven year olds, why have panels at conventions? You've been to more of those conventions than me. How many seven year olds are usually in that room? When these creators and animators talk up their work on your show, do they actively dissuade your adult audience from watching? Or are they on your show to talk to your seven year old listeners?
Companies that advertise at 9am on Cartoon Network aren't buying ad space to appeal to adults. Adult fans are appreciated, but not nearly as important.
GL toys weren't selling because kids didn't want them. Without kids, the show wasn't profitable enough and is cancelled.
Adult fans matter. They just don't matter ENOUGH, particularly with where DC/Warner/Cartoon Network have these shows positioned.
You have to also understand that Green Lantern was originally on Friday nights. It didn't start out on Saturday morning. As far as I know, the only Green Lantern animated toys that I ever saw were from those McDonalds Happy Meals. I think in the long run, you have to try and get a broad audience and when that happens, you're not always going to get what you hoped for. I loved the finales of these shows but I get where Jamie D is coming from and he makes valid points.
Regarding these shows hitting a Y7 audience - Adult fans of these shows are a tiny portion of the audience. We're insignificant. Sure, the creators can and do give us some fanservice, but we're not the priority.
I agree the younger viewers should be the priority, and are likely the larger target. My point was only that they are not exclusively the target. When a show can also entertain the adult viewers- including the adults parents, who at the end of the day are the prime influencers on what will be chosen for their kids, and what merchandise will be bought for their kids- then that is an example of succeeding and selling to multiple audiences.
I agree with you that the kids should be the priority. But a show would be foolish to not at least try to aim for a wider audience than JUST them.
Okay. Let's be more specific then. We're REALLY talking about catering to adult comic fans in these shows. Adult comic fans with kids are a TINY portion of the viewing audience compared to kids and/or adults in general.
Let's be serious here. We're not talking about a show being too kiddie/adult. I hated Marvel Superhero Squad. It was far too juvenile for me, so I didn't watch it. What the Geeks were really complaining about was that the show didn't do exactly what they wanted. A kids show adapting a 50+ year old comic property is NEVER going to tell the exact story everyone wants.
Exactly , and shame on me I guess abd those who agree for thinking the CGS hosts don't understand that, especially given how much they have episodes about animation subjects.
Pants is on the front line of seeing how badly GL toys do, Murd can rattle off VO actors will ease , and again there have been guests who come from these shows who give many behind the scene details , but the basics of who these shows are made for and the simple production details are a mystery?
So when the behind the scenes people come on CGS or your show. . . who are they trying to reach? If it is a basic fact that these shows are being made ONLY for the seven year olds, why have panels at conventions? You've been to more of those conventions than me. How many seven year olds are usually in that room? When these creators and animators talk up their work on your show, do they actively dissuade your adult audience from watching? Or are they on your show to talk to your seven year old listeners?
David. You clearly just don't get it so this will be my last post on the subject.
Again no one including the creators deny they have adult viewers but the main intended audience is the 7 year olds .
In fact it's at these con panels where the creators freely say why their shows get cancelled or simply aren't renewed after 2 seasons.
And in fact it's at here same panels where the creators beg for comments from children .
I have these guys on my show because I enjoy them and know that my audience is filled with people watching too. I also try to get them to explain things like why the last Avengers cartoon was cancelled despite the good reviews and ratings. Again the reasons why cartoons are made and thrive have many different business angles keeping them alive or canceling them.
By all means stick to your guns on the subject and deny the facts that are pretty easy to discover beyond your beliefs to the contrary .
Frankly, I'd rather listen to thoughts that come from passion, reaction and personal experience to material over "don't want to piss off the fact checkers" and "I shall only speak using what I've learned from others".
Yeah, exactly.
CGS is a show about personal opinions, where criticisms or praise can come at any point and where people can like or dislike whatever they want, for whatever reasons they want. Should the Geeks sometimes get called out if the stated reasoning behind their opinions is flawed? Sure. But everyone understands that this isn't a super-slick radio production that must be held to objective broadcasting criteria. No one should want the next CGS show to open with Jamie reading a carefully prepared retraction, saying that upon further thought it seems likely that the writers of a cartoon didn't know that the series would be ending for good until after they wrote the season finale, and therefore Jamie's negative criticism must be placed "on hold" until there is further investigative journalism and fact-checking. No one expects that, and for good reason.
WordBalloon, on the other hand, is an outlet for unanimous praise. Its content often verges on advertising, and it has an obvious existential (if not financial?) interest in nothing but positivity. It is conducted by a professional radio host with a clear desire to play nice with professional creators so that they'll return to the show again. (For example, see a certain podcast John did years ago with Jeph Loeb, in which Ultimates 3 was hailed as a irreproachable work and any reader who didn't think so was called an idiot. Loeb put forth those conjectures, and John smilingly agreed. The episode was extremely memorable in its shamelessness.) Negative criticism is basically verboten on WordBalloon, and I have only ever heard of one instance (Matt Fraction being interviewed about Fear Itself) when John actually took a creator to task for anything.
Does that mean that John is being a "shill", here? That DC Animation is paying him to come on here and defend their cartoons?
No, but it does mean that he's always in the mindset of explaining and excusing everything away. Defending the industry, and every subpar product in it, no matter what. I'm sure there are writers, artists, comics and cartoons that he doesn't like, but whatever enters his realm of discussion must be praised.
This is the same guy who made a big stink a few months ago when CGS gave X-Men Legacy #1 a poor review. Meanwhile every other review site that I saw also gave the book dismal, single-star ratings as well.
But, hey, to each their own. If John wants to go out of his way defend X-Men Legacy #1, Ultimates 3, and an obviously imperfect DC cartoon finale, that's his opinion and that's his sad problem.
Regarding these shows hitting a Y7 audience - Adult fans of these shows are a tiny portion of the audience. We're insignificant. Sure, the creators can and do give us some fanservice, but we're not the priority.
I agree the younger viewers should be the priority, and are likely the larger target. My point was only that they are not exclusively the target. When a show can also entertain the adult viewers- including the adults parents, who at the end of the day are the prime influencers on what will be chosen for their kids, and what merchandise will be bought for their kids- then that is an example of succeeding and selling to multiple audiences.
I agree with you that the kids should be the priority. But a show would be foolish to not at least try to aim for a wider audience than JUST them.
Okay. Let's be more specific then. We're REALLY talking about catering to adult comic fans in these shows. Adult comic fans with kids are a TINY portion of the viewing audience compared to kids and/or adults in general.
Let's be serious here. We're not talking about a show being too kiddie/adult. I hated Marvel Superhero Squad. It was far too juvenile for me, so I didn't watch it. What the Geeks were really complaining about was that the show didn't do exactly what they wanted. A kids show adapting a 50+ year old comic property is NEVER going to tell the exact story everyone wants.
Exactly , and shame on me I guess abd those who agree for thinking the CGS hosts don't understand that, especially given how much they have episodes about animation subjects.
Pants is on the front line of seeing how badly GL toys do, Murd can rattle off VO actors will ease , and again there have been guests who come from these shows who give many behind the scene details , but the basics of who these shows are made for and the simple production details are a mystery?
So when the behind the scenes people come on CGS or your show. . . who are they trying to reach? If it is a basic fact that these shows are being made ONLY for the seven year olds, why have panels at conventions? You've been to more of those conventions than me. How many seven year olds are usually in that room? When these creators and animators talk up their work on your show, do they actively dissuade your adult audience from watching? Or are they on your show to talk to your seven year old listeners?
David. You clearly just don't get it so this will be my last post on the subject.
Again no one including the creators deny they have adult viewers but the main intended audience is the 7 year olds .
In fact it's at these con panels where the creators freely say why their shows get cancelled or simply aren't renewed after 2 seasons.
And in fact it's at here same panels where the creators beg for comments from children .
By all means stick to your guns on the subject and deny the facts that are pretty easy to discover beyond your beliefs to the contrary
So then what was the point in saying that adult viewers (like Jamie and Shane) have no place in complaining if they didn't get what they wanted in the show? That was your initial preimse- that guys like Jamie and Shane shouldn't have even had expectations in the first place and were therefore just uninformed and yelling at a show for seven year olds. I would guess even the appearances made on your own show by the people behind these shows would suggest otherwise. That they were, as adults and parents, a part of the audience this originally prime time show launching off of a mainstream, PG-13 rated movie was going for.
Maybe if the show had succeeding in pleasing both seven year olds and adult fans, it would have kept its prime-time slot and become the next Clone Wars. It didn't. But I don't see how a perspective on it from an adult fan is somehow beside the point.
So wait. Were there GL: Animated toys? I didn't see them. I would have totally bought a Hal Jordan animated version figure or Razor or Aya. The movie toys did terrible and I thought because of those toys that the animated series never got toys except for the Happy Meal stuff. Am I wrong in that?
CGS is a show about personal opinions, where criticisms or praise can come at any point and where people can like or dislike whatever they want, for whatever reasons they want. Should the Geeks sometimes get called out if the stated reasoning behind their opinions is flawed? Sure. But everyone understands that this isn't a super-slick radio production that must be held to objective broadcasting criteria. No one should want the next CGS show to open with Jamie reading a carefully prepared retraction, saying that upon further thought it seems likely that the writers of a cartoon didn't know that the series would be ending for good until after they wrote the season finale, and therefore Jamie's negative criticism must be placed "on hold" until there is further investigative journalism and fact-checking. No one expects that, and for good reason.
I agree with this. Too often, though, I feel like those opinions are expressed in ways that make them sound like they're being stated as fact. "The show should have done something" instead of "I wish the show had done" something" or "I didn't like that the show had done something". I feel like it's silly to criticize the GL show because the other lantern corps didn't show up in the last episode. They were probably saving a big war of the light type battle for later seasons that weren't picked up.
WordBalloon, on the other hand, is an outlet for unanimous praise. Its content often verges on advertising, and it has an obvious existential (if not financial?) interest in nothing but positivity. It is conducted by a professional radio host with a clear desire to play nice with professional creators so that they'll return to the show again. (For example, see a certain podcast John did years ago with Jeph Loeb, in which Ultimates 3 was hailed as a irreproachable work and any reader who didn't think so was called an idiot. Loeb put forth those conjectures, and John smilingly agreed. The episode was extremely memorable in its shamelessness.) Negative criticism is basically verboten on WordBalloon, and I have only ever heard of one instance (Matt Fraction being interviewed about Fear Itself) when John actually took a creator to task for anything.
Please. No show doing an interview is going to attack the guest to their face. CGS definitely doesn't do it. (That's one thing I've liked about CGS, with 6 guys on the team, at least 1 probably has nice things to say or else the creator is so bad they aren't worth interviewing).
Yeah, John plays nice on Word Balloon. It's hardly unanimous praise, though. I've heard him bring up criticism on the show, but it's always to spur discussion. Sure, it's usually couched with phrases like, "There was a lot of criticism on the internet..." or "Many reviews said...", but he lets the guest address it. If I'm remembering the Loeb interview, Loeb and John made fun of some of the really silly, immature criticisms of Ultimates 3. It was a lot like what John is saying in this thread - it's great if you've got some feedback about the comic or show, but here's why this kind of comment is silly.
This is the same guy who made a big stink a few months ago when CGS gave X-Men Legacy #1 a poor review. Meanwhile every other review site that I saw also gave the book dismal, single-star ratings as well.
But, hey, to each their own. If John wants to go out of his way defend X-Men Legacy #1, Ultimates 3, and an obviously imperfect DC cartoon finale, that's his opinion and that's his sad problem.
This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about above. You're free to like or dislike the story in X-Men Legacy. To say the book is terrible because it's starring Legion and you don't want it to star Legion is ridiculous. If you're not interested in a Legion book, don't read a Legion book. If someone does like Legion, they could easily enjoy that story, but you've just told them it's terrible because of reasons totally unrelated to the actual quality of the story.
Comments
Yes, the business has changed since Batman TAS- now the adult part of the audience is part of the picture. Again, I'm not saying that their needs should be served to the exclusion of the kids. But a great show succeeds at pleasing both audiences. It sounds like GL didn't do that. Not sure why that complaint is therefore so noteworthy.
Now, there are a couple factors at play when it comes to the ending of Green Lantern and Young Justice. One, the audience Cartoon Network wants is a Y 7 one. It is awesome if it gets a broader viewership, but older folks are not what they crave (at least at this time slot). Two, Weisman and the other producers made a challenging show with subplots, dozens of supporting characters, and dark themes. This is to be lauded, but this comes with risks. Three, the shows had good to great ratings, and loads of critical acclaim. Four, the network yanked both shows off the air for months at a time (once without warning- to even the producers). Five, all the shows were in final production when the ax fell, so little could be changed. Six, the producers are still hoping to somehow come back. There is a video on YouTube of the producers of both shows asking fans to watch reruns, buy stuff, talk them up online, order DVDs, download episodes from iTunes, etc. They are even floating the idea of a Veronica Mars style Kickstarter. As Weisman points out, Warner Brothers (who owns the shows) gave Veronica Mars the go ahead, so you never know. Seven, the toys for both shows did not sell. No joke, this is THE main reason they are not on the air. There are a ton of reasons why the toys were not purchased (from the lackluster sales of the Ryan Reynolds movie to weak character selections in the waves), but many stores would not stock them. The producer of GL even mentions K-Mart on the video. It's funny that growing up, we all heard that cartoons were nothing but a glorified toy ad. Now, they really want them to be. Still I live in hope.Until then I will rewatch what we got, and wait for Weisman's next project.
Now, of course the Geek Speak guys have conducted tons of great interviews over the years. However, the strength of this show comes from them giving THEIR perspective. I'll admit, it can be frustrating when their views don't match mine, but I'm still a fan. I may only have a post or two, but I have listened to nearly every episode. I see this program as a group of friends, and we get to listen in. Now, I have been to my local comic shop, and heard conversations and views that were so far off the mark, that I want to tackle the people involved. Same thing happens when I listen to CGS sometimes. But, it's ok, because you have not set your selves up as authorities. I always loathed Wizard Magazine proclaiming which character could beat another, what was cool to read, etc. because for a short while they had real sway. The CGS guys are just humble fans, and they don't always agree with what is "good". My favorite episodes are the Spotlights, when Chris guests, because I do love my history.
Both podcasts are a treat, but both give me very different experiences.
Frankly, I'd rather listen to thoughts that come from passion, reaction and personal experience to material over "don't want to piss off the fact checkers" and "I shall only speak using what I've learned from others".
As for @Pants, welcome to the TARDIS. I remember watching classic Who when I was younger and then somehow just getting out of it for awhile and then getting back into the franchise with the new series. You're in for a wild ride. One bit of advice. When you finish the first series and go onto the second series, if you watch the second series on DVD, there is a special video in the extra content section that would you should probably watch first as it's a special look at the 10th Doctor that was filmed for a British organization called "Children In Need" and it takes place between the last episode of the first series and the Christmas Invasion episode which launches the second series. It's pretty good and about 7 minutes long. They also did that with a special that takes place between the 3rd and 4th series. They are fun and worth watching. Enjoy your journey with the Doctor. It's a lot of fun.
For @ShaneKelly, those Doctor Who specials that feature one Doctor story of the classic series is being showed the last Sunday of every month so be on the lookout for the 3rd Doctor soon. Also, if you go to audible.com, they have a lot of Doctor Who audio stories including lost episodes that are only available in audio format. They have a lot of audio dramas of the second Doctor with narration from Frazer Hines (Jamie McCrimmon) that are amazing. Not to mention they have audio exclusive stories with the 10th Doctor read by Tennent. Lots of great stories for Doctor who at Audible.
SOME of John's critiques seem to be more based on the style used for Wordballoon (more pro media out) vs the style used on CGS. Its like 60 minutes critiquing TMZ for their presentation based on the news outlet's style. NOT saying John hasn't made valid critiques in the past. I think that is what rubs other posters thin.
Though, in this thread I did question his loaded use of "countless," but that's based on how attorneys have used specific words to paint me into a corner.
M
It largely comes down to merchandising, as has been fairly widely reported. bleedingcool.com/2013/03/04/tales-from-eccc-bruce-timm-and-green-lantern-animated-series/
Regarding the Word Balloon criticism - I came here to say a lot of the same stuff. A lot of the reviews lately have been largely, "The show/comic didn't tell the story I wanted/expected and I was disappointed." Of course, when it IS the story you expected, the criticism is that the show was predictable.
Jamie was complaining that the Blue Lanterns weren't in the final battle. It was established earlier in the seasons that Blue Lanterns power up Manhunters too. They would have been counterproductive in the fight. Red Lanterns and Zamarons are in frontier space, that's REALLY far away and they don't have quick transportation (Star Sapphire teleportation only works to get true loves together). You didn't seen Sinestro, but there were hundreds of GLs, he was probably there. Larfleeze couldn't be counted on; did you really get that from the trio's interaction with him?
I agree with you that the kids should be the priority. But a show would be foolish to not at least try to aim for a wider audience than JUST them.
Let's be serious here. We're not talking about a show being too kiddie/adult. I hated Marvel Superhero Squad. It was far too juvenile for me, so I didn't watch it. What the Geeks were really complaining about was that the show didn't do exactly what they wanted. A kids show adapting a 50+ year old comic property is NEVER going to tell the exact story everyone wants.
So if comic fan viewers (of any age) had an expectation that a story might play out the way it did in the comics, it is not like DC Entertainment did not have some part in building that expectation.
Do I think that 'did it do what I expected?' is the best metric for judging something? No. But it is not an invalid or uninformed response, either. That's all.
Pants is on the front line of seeing how badly GL toys do, Murd can rattle off VO actors will ease , and again there have been guests who come from these shows who give many behind the scene details , but the basics of who these shows are made for and the simple production details are a mystery?
GL toys weren't selling because kids didn't want them. Without kids, the show wasn't profitable enough and is cancelled.
Adult fans matter. They just don't matter ENOUGH, particularly with where DC/Warner/Cartoon Network have these shows positioned.
Again no one including the creators deny they have adult viewers but the main intended audience is the 7 year olds .
In fact it's at these con panels where the creators freely say why their shows get cancelled or simply aren't renewed after 2 seasons.
And in fact it's at here same panels where the creators beg for comments from children .
I have these guys on my show because I enjoy them and know that my audience is filled with people watching too. I also try to get them to explain things like why the last Avengers cartoon was cancelled despite the good reviews and ratings. Again the reasons why cartoons are made and thrive have many different business angles keeping them alive or canceling them.
By all means stick to your guns on the subject and deny the facts that are pretty easy to discover beyond your beliefs to the contrary .
- what was the presentation of the toyline? Was it kiddish like Batman: B&B or more like the Justice League line?
- do you thing the live action movie toyline deterred interest in the animated series' line?
- could the popularity of GL just not be strong enough to get interest by kids for the toys (despite what DC wants)?
M
CGS is a show about personal opinions, where criticisms or praise can come at any point and where people can like or dislike whatever they want, for whatever reasons they want. Should the Geeks sometimes get called out if the stated reasoning behind their opinions is flawed? Sure. But everyone understands that this isn't a super-slick radio production that must be held to objective broadcasting criteria. No one should want the next CGS show to open with Jamie reading a carefully prepared retraction, saying that upon further thought it seems likely that the writers of a cartoon didn't know that the series would be ending for good until after they wrote the season finale, and therefore Jamie's negative criticism must be placed "on hold" until there is further investigative journalism and fact-checking. No one expects that, and for good reason.
WordBalloon, on the other hand, is an outlet for unanimous praise. Its content often verges on advertising, and it has an obvious existential (if not financial?) interest in nothing but positivity. It is conducted by a professional radio host with a clear desire to play nice with professional creators so that they'll return to the show again. (For example, see a certain podcast John did years ago with Jeph Loeb, in which Ultimates 3 was hailed as a irreproachable work and any reader who didn't think so was called an idiot. Loeb put forth those conjectures, and John smilingly agreed. The episode was extremely memorable in its shamelessness.) Negative criticism is basically verboten on WordBalloon, and I have only ever heard of one instance (Matt Fraction being interviewed about Fear Itself) when John actually took a creator to task for anything.
Does that mean that John is being a "shill", here? That DC Animation is paying him to come on here and defend their cartoons?
No, but it does mean that he's always in the mindset of explaining and excusing everything away. Defending the industry, and every subpar product in it, no matter what. I'm sure there are writers, artists, comics and cartoons that he doesn't like, but whatever enters his realm of discussion must be praised.
This is the same guy who made a big stink a few months ago when CGS gave X-Men Legacy #1 a poor review. Meanwhile every other review site that I saw also gave the book dismal, single-star ratings as well.
But, hey, to each their own. If John wants to go out of his way defend X-Men Legacy #1, Ultimates 3, and an obviously imperfect DC cartoon finale, that's his opinion and that's his sad problem.
Maybe if the show had succeeding in pleasing both seven year olds and adult fans, it would have kept its prime-time slot and become the next Clone Wars. It didn't. But I don't see how a perspective on it from an adult fan is somehow beside the point.
Yeah, John plays nice on Word Balloon. It's hardly unanimous praise, though. I've heard him bring up criticism on the show, but it's always to spur discussion. Sure, it's usually couched with phrases like, "There was a lot of criticism on the internet..." or "Many reviews said...", but he lets the guest address it. If I'm remembering the Loeb interview, Loeb and John made fun of some of the really silly, immature criticisms of Ultimates 3. It was a lot like what John is saying in this thread - it's great if you've got some feedback about the comic or show, but here's why this kind of comment is silly.
This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about above. You're free to like or dislike the story in X-Men Legacy. To say the book is terrible because it's starring Legion and you don't want it to star Legion is ridiculous. If you're not interested in a Legion book, don't read a Legion book. If someone does like Legion, they could easily enjoy that story, but you've just told them it's terrible because of reasons totally unrelated to the actual quality of the story.