Discussing how we criticise the Pokemon anime

[VoltTacklingPika]

I made this thread on the assumption - and feel free to correct me - that the average age range of posters on this forum is 15-25, and that the intended audience for the Pokemon anime is much younger than that.

My key question is this: do we, as fans outside the intended audience, have grounds to criticise the Pokemon anime?

I ask this because it seems like a logical fallacy to be critical of something that isn't meant for us. It's a bit like finding a shirt you used to wear when you were 10 and then complaining that it no longer fits you and blaming the manufacturer. Just as we outgrow clothes, we also outgrow entertainment.

As teenagers and as adults, our standards, expectations and needs/wants of entertainment are very different to that of a child's. Whether consciously or unconsciously, we're always going to be watching Pokemon through the lens of someone who, perhaps, expects more from his entertainment. Hence, I feel that our criticisms at times are inappropriate.

Take, for example, the common criticism that Pokemon is too adverse to mature themes. From our perspective as teenagers or adults, we're inclined to want mature themes because we've consumed entertainment that have them. Yet, as children, did we ever want Pokemon to be mature or to get dark at any point? I can't answer for everyone, but my assumption would be no, we wouldn't. In which case, criticising the show for not being mature feels unfair.

Another example is when people say they can't connect to certain characters; that they feel some characters are bad, or pointless, etc. Most of these characters aren't designed to appeal to teenagers and adults, yet here we are acting as if they were meant for us. Again I ask: as children, would we criticise any of these characters for being poorly written? And again, I assume the answer would be no. We'd probably just have a basic sense of which characters we like and which we don't.

I bring this up because Pokemon is a unique show that has somehow managed to retain the core of its initial audience throughout its 20 year run despite largely staying the same throughout that run. Due to this, the discussion surrounding the show, at least online, feels skewed. Having been involved in discussions, I've gotten the nagging feeling that the show never lives up to people's expectations. That we spend a lot of time examining what the show has done wrong in our eyes without realising that the show hasn't done much to wrong us in the first place.

Perhaps it's just me that feels that way, but the fanbase has been very divided on certain issues over the last few years and I feel as if some of the passion/fervor is unwarranted given the nature of the show. That's not to say the show shouldn't be criticised at all, just that we could use a bit more perspective at times.

 

[SH65]

Yes if something bad we have the right to say its bad with reason.

 

[TheWanderingMist]

Asking for reasonability on the Internet is like trying to squeeze water from a stone. It can happen occasionally, but it will take a miracle.

As someone who left the anime partway through DP and got back in with BW, I think we do have the grounds to criticize it, especially if we've been watching for a long while. But not on how "mature" it is, because that's ridiculous, and DP's blatant Sue-ification of the rival proved that they didn't really know how to do "mature". And, different people have wildly different definitions of "mature". We should instead criticize the anime on how well it handles the characters it creates, both through the characters' influence on the plot and how consistent they are in their interactions with other characters.


And people have got to stop confusing animation and art style. Art style is how the characters and backgrounds are drawn. Art style before BW shows its age, BW and XY have a prettier artstyle. And SM has a simple artstyle. Animation is the fluidity of the motion. It's easy to notice the animation difference between the series before BW, and from BW onward, especially pronounced in SM. Some people have been saying stuff about the Digimon movie from 2001 having the same animation quality. Not sure if it's true, but they yell about it like that makes SM look bad animation wise while failing to consider a movie has a vastly higher budget than a weekly television series.

 

[Genaller]

Well I need to say this; being a kid's show is not and I repeat not an excuse for bad writing like plot holes, DEMs, and many other inconsistencies in the anime. Perhaps there are some aspects that are merely down to taste (though even in these cases people still have the write to express their distaste); however, there are aspects that shouldn't be blindly accepted or excused regardless of who the intended demographic is.

 

[Halolady]

Well I need to say this; being a kid's show is not and I repeat not an excuse for bad writing like plot holes, DEMs, and many other inconsistencies in the anime. Perhaps there are some aspects that are merely down to taste (though even in these cases people still have the write to express their distaste); however, there are aspects that shouldn't be blindly accepted or excused regardless of who the intended demographic is.

^This more-or-less sums up my thoughts perfectly.

To put it simply - there's a difference between criticizing a show based on its' contents and criticizing it based on the execution/presentation of said contents.

 

[BlueDragonfangirl]

I see nothing wrong with criticism of Pokemon, I do it all the time with each Pokemon series. Lately it seems this series keeps forgetting things that happened in it's previous series more and more.

 

[VoltTacklingPika]

Asking for reasonability on the Internet is like trying to squeeze water from a stone. It can happen occasionally, but it will take a miracle.

While this is sadly true, it's not my intention to ask people to be reasonable, nor is it to police what people can and can't say. I just wanted to open up a discussion on a topic that really interests me.

As someone who left the anime partway through DP and got back in with BW, I think we do have the grounds to criticize it, especially if we've been watching for a long while. But not on how "mature" it is, because that's ridiculous, and DP's blatant Sue-ification of the rival proved that they didn't really know how to do "mature". And, different people have wildly different definitions of "mature". We should instead criticize the anime on how well it handles the characters it creates, both through the characters' influence on the plot and how consistent they are in their interactions with other characters.

I'm not sure watching something for a long time gives someone grounds to criticise something. That person may have invested a lot of time and emotion into something, so on one hand, they should expect some return on that investment. However, I feel they should also be responsible for what they're investing in. Watching Pokemon for 20 years shouldn't give someone the grounds to criticise it for, say, not being at mature as they would like, or not having characters that they can relate to.

I agree that we can crticse the characters but, again, I feel that we, as older viewers, are missing important context and that makes our judgement unfair.

And people have got to stop confusing animation and art style. Art style is how the characters and backgrounds are drawn. Art style before BW shows its age, BW and XY have a prettier artstyle. And SM has a simple artstyle. Animation is the fluidity of the motion. It's easy to notice the animation difference between the series before BW, and from BW onward, especially pronounced in SM. Some people have been saying stuff about the Digimon movie from 2001 having the same animation quality. Not sure if it's true, but they yell about it like that makes SM look bad animation wise while failing to consider a movie has a vastly higher budget than a weekly television series.

Slightly off topic, but the 2001 Digimon movie had excellent animation. Art-wise it has a passing resemblance to SM (the roundish, softer way the characters are drawn) and it also makes use comical faces, though not to the extreme extent that SM does. SM has episodes that are animated just as well, but being a TV show there's always going to be more inconsistency.

Well I need to say this; being a kid's show is not and I repeat not an excuse for bad writing like plot holes, DEMs, and many other inconsistencies in the anime. Perhaps there are some aspects that are merely down to taste (though even in these cases people still have the write to express their distaste); however, there are aspects that shouldn't be blindly accepted or excused regardless of who the intended demographic is.

When we talk about bad writing, there has to be a standard that we're holding the show to in order to determine what is bad and what isn't. To that end, I challenge you to find me a kid's anime that doesn't have plot holes, DEMs and inconsistencies.

This brings me to the point I made about the show never meeting people's expectations. For you, the show's writing drops below standard, but is that your personal standard, formed from watching many other shows, or is that a universal standard that can be applied to all kid's shows?

The "it's a kids show" excuse often gets dismissed, but it's something worth considering because, as an older viewer, I feel I should afford the show a certain amount of leniency when it comes to its writing.

Also, people have a right to express their distaste, but my issue here is that an older person's taste is going to be different to a child's taste. To illustrate my point, take any discussion about SM's style of comedy. Several people say they don't find it funny, but they aren't kids, so how can that be a valid criticism?

To put it simply - there's a difference between criticizing a show based on its' contents and criticizing it based on the execution/presentation of said contents.

I agree, but this calls to attention a very important facet of criticism that I think often goes missing: context. The execution and presentation of Pokemon's contents is always going to be tailored to its intended audience, and not us.

 

[Daniel31]

While this is sadly true, it's not my intention to ask people to be reasonable, nor is it to police what people can and can't say. I just wanted to open up a discussion on a topic that really interests me.



I'm not sure watching something for a long time gives someone grounds to criticise something. That person may have invested a lot of time and emotion into something, so on one hand, they should expect some return on that investment. However, I feel they should also be responsible for what they're investing in. Watching Pokemon for 20 years shouldn't give someone the grounds to criticise it for, say, not being at mature as they would like, or not having characters that they can relate to.

I agree that we can crticse the characters but, again, I feel that we, as older viewers, are missing important context and that makes our judgement unfair.



Slightly off topic, but the 2001 Digimon movie had excellent animation. Art-wise it has a passing resemblance to SM (the roundish, softer way the characters are drawn) and it also makes use comical faces, though not to the extreme extent that SM does. SM has episodes that are animated just as well, but being a TV show there's always going to be more inconsistency.



When we talk about bad writing, there has to be a standard that we're holding the show to in order to determine what is bad and what isn't. To that end, I challenge you to find me a kid's anime that doesn't have plot holes, DEMs and inconsistencies.

This brings me to the point I made about the show never meeting people's expectations. For you, the show's writing drops below standard, but is that your personal standard, formed from watching many other shows, or is that a universal standard that can be applied to all kid's shows?

The "it's a kids show" excuse often gets dismissed, but it's something worth considering because, as an older viewer, I feel I should afford the show a certain amount of leniency when it comes to its writing.

Also, people have a right to express their distaste, but my issue here is that an older person's taste is going to be different to a child's taste. To illustrate my point, take any discussion about SM's style of comedy. Several people say they don't find it funny, but they aren't kids, so how can that be a valid criticism?



I agree, but this calls to attention a very important facet of criticism that I think often goes missing: context. The execution and presentation of Pokemon's contents is always going to be tailored to its intended audience, and not us.

Pretty well said.

It's like most adults or older fans of the show are watching Pokemon through the mindset of an adult and not through the mindset of a child, which is the target audience. I mean, we know it's kid's show, but spotting things like DEMs, plot holes, bad writing/inconsistencies, etc...are much easier for an adult to spot, whereas a child may not spot these things, and overall don't care about it. I think people tend to forget this.

I'm not saying the anime should get a free pass 100% of the time for these types of things, but as an older fan, one should be more understanding. I mean, the writers obviously know that older fans and adults still watch the anime, and they do include subtle things in the anime for us to spot and enjoy, but to be criticizing or ripping apart certain aspects of the anime (a majority of the time), is quite ridiculous IMHO. I don't think there's been a week where a Pokemon episode or the series hasn't been criticized in some way, shape, or form.

 

[Halolady]

Sorry for the late reply! I've been busy.

I agree, but this calls to attention a very important facet of criticism that I think often goes missing: context. The execution and presentation of Pokemon's contents is always going to be tailored to its intended audience, and not us.

Do demographics really affect a show's ability to pull off good execution, though? I mean, I can understand limitations regarding the actual contents that it puts out, but what exactly are the limitations surrounding the execution of said contents?

 

[ash&charizardfan]

Apparently 3 major criticisms that I have heard about the anime is first ash even after 20 years of anime is still 10 years old. Second why do ash loses in all the regional championships even when he is in sometimes better posiotion and the last one is pikachu after beating several legendaries and apparently reaching lvl 100 still lost to so called lvl 5 snivy. The biggest plot hole to me in the anime is the time flown they could have made ash nearly a teenager like 14-15 yrs old in XY/SM.

 

[Janovy]

Do demographics really affect a show's ability to pull off good execution, though? I mean, I can understand limitations regarding the actual contents that it puts out, but what exactly are the limitations surrounding the execution of said contents?

It's not so much limitations as much as it is writers understanding that children do not care about execution as much as adults.

So they have no reason to put in too much effort. The main difference between us and children is that children just watch it and enjoy it, and we watch it and then proceed to dissect and analyze it.

 

[Crystal]

There exist criticisms that are target-demographic specific which is inappropriate for adults to debate, but there also exist criticisms that are ageless that can be discussed by everyone and anyone regardless of age of audience. Story plot consistency and the meta problems such as those mentioned above by ash&charizardfan are some nice examples of the latter.

Do not forget, the screenwriters and directors board and other staffs involved in making this anime are all adults way above 20 some even at their 50's. Despite it is because of their job, but if these adults have the right to discuss the anime on daily basis, why can't we discuss it? I think the only thing we the outsiders need to take into consideration during the discussion is the acknowledgement of our adult mindset, and always acknowledging the fact that Pokemon is made for children.

But also remember, "This is for children" is not a free pass for poor quality products. Think of normal toys such as Lego and Barbie Dolls, if The LEGO Group produced and selling poor quality product such as for reason of setting a toy factory in Mainland China which uses poor quality plastic that eludes harmful chemicals that could endanger the developing children body, or Mattel introduced a controversial prostitute version of Barbie that dresses in sexually very attractive costumes (additionally with visible nipples and vagina for this version), are we the adults which some could be parents of those target children unable to voice our opinions or discontents to the companies?
I apply the same rule to Pokemon Anime.


That's why, I stopped to criticize SM, because if the target demographics which are young children are OK with this wacky slapstick comedy, then whatever problem I have with SM such as the vulgar visual gags and rubber-human-like art style and lack of battles and no adventure and boring sitcom style slice-of-life story plot are all not problems anymore.

Though yet, like I said at the beginning, there exists criticisms that are ageless that can be discuss by everyone and anyone. I'm still doubting about the meta decisions of the higher-ups of such abrupt change of style from XY to SM, the recycling story plot of Pokemon Anime which soft reset in each region, the reason of league challenge failure of Ash Ketchum, or even the raison d'etre of Ash Ketchum himself. Are these decisions really doing any goods to the staffs and sponsor companies, and also to their target audience of children? I really doubt about that.

 

[satopi]

I enjoy it for what it brings. What you wrote was very well said and I feel that some people here lost touch on why they watch the show to begin with. It was always about the journey, never the end result yet a lot of people focus on the end result as though it matters way more than what was intended. The standards here are high because most of us are adults/teenagers while children may have expectations but not to the level as some here. ^^

 

[VoltTacklingPika]

Do demographics really affect a show's ability to pull off good execution, though? I mean, I can understand limitations regarding the actual contents that it puts out, but what exactly are the limitations surrounding the execution of said contents?

Generally speaking, a kid's show has a simpler presentation of its contents. There's usually very little foreshadowing and subtext, plot points are explained and there's far less left to interpretation from the audience. Also, there's the highly structured nature of the narrative, which makes the show a lot easier to watch.

To give an example for the how presentation and execution is different: compare how Pokemon handled Stoutland's death to, say, how a Shonen show like Naruto or One Piece handled a death. Note how in Pokemon, you never see a body, nor is the word death explicitly mentioned or discussed.

There exist criticisms that are target-demographic specific which is inappropriate for adults to debate, but there also exist criticisms that are ageless that can be discussed by everyone and anyone regardless of age of audience. Story plot consistency and the meta problems such as those mentioned above by ash&charizardfan are some nice examples of the latter.

I'm not so sure about this. As a child, are you as concerned, or even aware, of story inconsistency? Would you even know what meta is? They're issues for us but I feel like, as I said before, there's a certain degree of leniency that comes with a child's show. It's easy for us to spot them in hindsight, but I don't think many young viewers are even aware of the issues or have the ability to articulate them if they do.

Do not forget, the screenwriters and directors board and other staffs involved in making this anime are all adults way above 20 some even at their 50's. Despite it is because of their job, but if these adults have the right to discuss the anime on daily basis, why can't we discuss it? I think the only thing we the outsiders need to take into consideration during the discussion is the acknowledgement of our adult mindset, and always acknowledging the fact that Pokemon is made for children.

There's huge difference between adults discussing it as creators and adults discussing it as consumers. As creators, I imagine much of their discussion is about creating a product that children will enjoy. As consumers, a lot of our discussion is about what we did and didn't enjoy, and often ignores what children would enjoy.

Note that I didn't say that adults couldn't discuss the show. I'm more questioning the nature of the discussion.

But also remember, "This is for children" is not a free pass for poor quality products. Think of normal toys such as Lego and Barbie Dolls, if The LEGO Group produced and selling poor quality product such as for reason of setting a toy factory in Mainland China which uses poor quality plastic that eludes harmful chemicals that could endanger the developing children body, or Mattel introduced a controversial prostitute version of Barbie that dresses in sexually very attractive costumes (additionally with visible nipples and vagina for this version), are we the adults which some could be parents of those target children unable to voice our opinions or discontents to the companies?

I don't see how this comparison is valid at all. You're comparing hypothetically harmful products to a harmless product. Nobody is going to give a prostitute Barbie doll a pass because it's meant to be for children, but they'd probably give a kid's TV show a pass so long as it wasn't offending anybody.

My argument is more to do with how we, as adults, talk about a kid's product. No where did I suggest that people couldn't complain or have an opinion about something potentially harmful to someone else.

I enjoy it for what it brings. What you wrote was very well said and I feel that some people here lost touch on why they watch the show to begin with. It was always about the journey, never the end result yet a lot of people focus on the end result as though it matters way more than what was intended. The standards here are high because most of us are adults/teenagers while children may have expectations but not to the level as some here. ^^

People have their own reasons for still watching and I accept that. A lot of people probably did watch the show to see what the end result would be, and being disappointed that it never delivered one would be a perfectly valid criticism.

However, I also feel that the older you get and the more aware you are of the show's endless nature, the more accepting you need to be of not getting the results you want. And if you're in it for the journey, there also has to be an understanding of how that journey is for and how much you can realistically get out of it.

 

[Leonhart]

I see nothing wrong with criticism of Pokemon, I do it all the time with each Pokemon series. Lately it seems this series keeps forgetting things that happened in it's previous series more and more.

What previously established things of actual importance have the writers forgotten in SM? Because we just had two back-to-back nostalgia episodes and although not everything that happened in past sagas got referenced in them, that had more to do with limited space and time in each episode than because the writers simply forgot to add certain things.

 

[Shadao]

I made this thread on the assumption - and feel free to correct me - that the average age range of posters on this forum is 15-25, and that the intended audience for the Pokemon anime is much younger than that.

My key question is this: do we, as fans outside the intended audience, have grounds to criticise the Pokemon anime?

I ask this because it seems like a logical fallacy to be critical of something that isn't meant for us. It's a bit like finding a shirt you used to wear when you were 10 and then complaining that it no longer fits you and blaming the manufacturer. Just as we outgrow clothes, we also outgrow entertainment.

As teenagers and as adults, our standards, expectations and needs/wants of entertainment are very different to that of a child's. Whether consciously or unconsciously, we're always going to be watching Pokemon through the lens of someone who, perhaps, expects more from his entertainment. Hence, I feel that our criticisms at times are inappropriate.

Take, for example, the common criticism that Pokemon is too adverse to mature themes. From our perspective as teenagers or adults, we're inclined to want mature themes because we've consumed entertainment that have them. Yet, as children, did we ever want Pokemon to be mature or to get dark at any point? I can't answer for everyone, but my assumption would be no, we wouldn't. In which case, criticising the show for not being mature feels unfair.

Another example is when people say they can't connect to certain characters; that they feel some characters are bad, or pointless, etc. Most of these characters aren't designed to appeal to teenagers and adults, yet here we are acting as if they were meant for us. Again I ask: as children, would we criticise any of these characters for being poorly written? And again, I assume the answer would be no. We'd probably just have a basic sense of which characters we like and which we don't.

I bring this up because Pokemon is a unique show that has somehow managed to retain the core of its initial audience throughout its 20 year run despite largely staying the same throughout that run. Due to this, the discussion surrounding the show, at least online, feels skewed. Having been involved in discussions, I've gotten the nagging feeling that the show never lives up to people's expectations. That we spend a lot of time examining what the show has done wrong in our eyes without realising that the show hasn't done much to wrong us in the first place.

Perhaps it's just me that feels that way, but the fanbase has been very divided on certain issues over the last few years and I feel as if some of the passion/fervor is unwarranted given the nature of the show. That's not to say the show shouldn't be criticised at all, just that we could use a bit more perspective at times.

This phenomena is known as Periphery demographic. You can really use it to describe any franchises such as Transformers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Scooby Doo, DC Superheroes, Marvel Superheroes, Disney, Looney Tunes, Spongebob Squarepants, etc. All of these franchises have one thing in common. They started off as something meant to entertain children and persuade them to buy their merchandise.

Batman, for all of its praises by critics for its dark and mature setting these days, was just a costumed crimefighter among many other costumed crimefighters fighting bad guys in ridiculous costumes with themed gimmicks. If we the audience were told we shouldn't criticize Batman's campiness during the 60s because he was aimed for kids, we would have never gotten movies like Tim Burton's Batman, Batman the Animated Series, and the Dark Knight Trilogy. The campy 60s TV show was still an important chapter in the Batman history, being the thing that brought Batman to mainstream attention. But that doesn't mean that Batman should have remained in the campy 60s. As audience tastes change, so did the character.

And this is due to the fact we, having watched Pokémon as kids, associate Pokémon as part of our childhood and when grow up, we wanted the show to grow up with us. Not the point of going full adult darker and edgier, but more of having Pokémon tell mature stories and themes while still aiming for kids. By appeasing to both adults with nostalgia and kids introduced to the show, Pokémon can have a wider audience in theory and thus potentially last forever like Walt Disney did several decades before.

Pokémon is no stranger to criticism from adult fans. There's nothing really unique about Pokémon when compared to other long runners like Spider-Man or Detective Conan. Heck, the fact that Pokémon still retains that kid friendly nature is a testament to its longevity and stability (for the most part).

Other series like Spider-Man started out trying to have Peter Parker grow from a teenager to an adult, only to be stuck in a limbo civil war between people who want Spider-Man to grow up to be a responsible adult and those who want to keep as a young, single man with none of the realities of growing up. Just look at One More Day to see what happens when a reset button is pushed the wrong way.

And I think that's why people are critical of how the anime is handling Ash. Ash started off as a character with no skills or maturity, only to grow as a character and trainer until he reaches heights like DP and XY. That is a formula for a coming of age story. A story that requires the character grow up mentally. And remember what I said about we the audience wanting our childhood shows to grow up with us? The story structure of Pokémon encourages that feeling. And thus, we get frustrated when Ash is reset the same way Spider-Man fans get upset when Peter Parker gets reset.

 

[Bahmo]

VoltTacklingPika, your post leaves out a key, important fact about adults: We give birth to children. Maybe you're right that the average age of users here is 15-25, and maybe at that age you're not thinking of birth so much, but I'm 32, and for various reasons, some of which may very well be related to biology, I've recently started thinking a lot more about how I will bring up children when I have them, and what I want to expose them to, and not to sound like a prudish authoritarian, because overall I don't intend to be that sort of parent, but from where I'm standing, the notion that "it's for kids" implies a more liberal curb on which to grade things feels frequently bizarre. Not always, but frequently.

For example, what sort of disparate things does "it's for kids" mean? I still remember a decade ago that this designation was applied to "Crank Dat", by Soulja Boy, and since its lyrics contain multiple instances of "up in this hoe", I'm going to assume that the main reason adults came to that conclusion is they listened to it for a few seconds and decided, "this is too terrible to possibly be intended for older people who have had more time to refine their tastes". In all seriousness, though, "For Kids" tends to have four meanings:

1) Intended to entertain children.
2) Intended to educate children.
3) Intended to enculturate certain values in children.
4) Intended to to get the parents of children to buy them things.

Note that many children's media entail more than one of the above. Given the latter two, it should be obvious why I feel that sometimes, "it's for kids" warrants a greater degree of oversight; not a lesser one. The key question to ask of the purveyors of things that are for kids is, "Are you serving kids, or are you exploiting them?"

Not that I'd declare the simple act of wanting to sell products to children, exploitation. I wish I could say I still enjoyed Pokemon the way I did when I was a child, and I suspect many people have the same wish; it's not like any of us were unaware there was a business being run back when we loved it. But here's what I think does qualify as exploitation, what earns the Pokemon anime the most scorn from me, and what makes "it's for kids" not a defense, but an extra strike against it: On top of its plots being lackluster, repetitive, and sometimes featuring resets of characters to near plothole levels, the problem is it preys on the ignorance of children to enable itself to keep doing that. Note that I explicitly said "ignorance", not youth, because this isn't about children being stupid or having different tastes. I do not believe, for a second, that children want to see Ash lose leagues, nor constantly swap out his older, stronger Pokemon for weaker ones, or suddenly get dumb and weak again, to ensure that he continues to lose leagues, nor abandon his human friends as he moves on in his vicious cycle of perpetually pupal failure.

The Pokemon anime is not going in that cycle because it's what children actually want to see; it's doing so because it deludes children into thinking that the things they actually want to see are just around the corner when they never actually are. (That, and because funds earned from selling games pay for this show, it doesn't have to worry if people are actually tuning in to generate ad revenue.) Whether it's Ash's constant refrain amounting to "I lost this league, but next time will be different; just you wait", the escalating of the closest he's come to a romantic relationship only to drop it, or the teasing of the Rockets having some depth that just gets neglected as they keep banging their heads against the protagonists, or momentarily developing some competence, which just like Ash's, can be reset at any time, this show continues to let generation after generation of viewers down because it's exploiting the ignorance of newer and newer viewers who don't yet realize they're caught in its trap, and that is disgusting.

What makes it even more so, is it doesn't have to be this way. "It" meaning the Pokemon series and its merchandise-driven direction; fully acknowledged as a given unto themselves. The problem with the show is not that it exists to sell video games; it's that it insists on keeping around characters who have outlived their purpose and "continuing" their "story" on the side. The reason Ash gets the flak he does as a character, who hardly ever has a personality beyond "2BA Master" and is only occasionally even good at that, is because the showrunners insist on shoving him into the mold that's meant for brand new characters from the games. Likewise, Team Rocket is ineffectual because while the show is contorting itself to fit into the game plots, an effective arch-nemesis other than the games' villains would just derail them. This anime is trying to be two antithetical things at once, and tragically it ends up worthy as neither. Things could be drastically improved if only they realized this, and it would make absolutely no threat to the existing business model, since it revolves around selling games that Ash (beyond certain special occasion Pokemon) isn't even in!

Ideally, I think this anime should finally let Ash and Team Rocket retire with dignity. Give them a fulfilling ending, and take them out of the show, and then focus on the protagonists and villains of the actual games. But if that's too drastic and would, in fact, upset the hypothetical viewers who are attached to those travel-everywhere, go-nowhere characters, instead they could just keep them around but shift their roles. Give Ash a league victory, permanent development, and a strong reserve team of Pokemon iconic across generations, and when he moves onto the next region, instead of a n00b, he becomes the mentor to the actual protagonist of the video game; the boy, the girl, or maybe even both, and these game protagonists are now the ones who have the 2BA Master Quest. It's not hard.

It's a bit harder to determine how to evolve Team Rocket's role. Back in my day, they were in the anti-Goldilocks zone of villainy wherein they were too sympathetic to hate, and too pathetic to fear; I don't know how their characters have evolved since. But if they had to stick around, I'd say probably the best way is as some sort of anti-heroes. They can't be made competent enough to hinder the protagonists seriously or become the "Big Bad", for the previously-mentioned reason of derailing narrative, and they can't go straight without massive character derailment, but I think they could stick around as people who are selfish but mostly end up going up against the greater evils (ie, the game villains).

Again, it's not like such revisions would make the show more "adult". There's scant evidence that it would go against what children want to see. What it would do is offer a sense of satisfaction to viewers who had been there for a while. It's not about age; it doesn't matter if they were ten when they started and are now twelve, or eight when they started and are now ten. It's about getting your time investment rewarded with something big actually happening.

 

[VoltTacklingPika]

@Bahmo

I appreciate you giving an intelligent response to my argument. I would like to explain that the reason I didn't mention parenting or the influence of the show on children is not because I didn't think of it, but because my argument was based more on the idea of adults consuming children's entertainment and having an adult reaction to it, which creates a disparity between how the show is watched and what it's actually showing.

My issue with that was that it placed an unreasonable expectation of the show and created a culture of "this is never good enough", which in turn led to a perpetually divisive fanbase. What you're addressing is how we as adults may view entertainment as something our children (or nephews and nieces) may one day consume, which I think is perfectly valid, but not something you'll often see discussed during discourse about the show. Few here, for example, will ever criticise something on the grounds of "this is bad for my child".

For the sake of discussion, I do very much agree with the following:

Note that many children's media entail more than one of the above. Given the latter two, it should be obvious why I feel that sometimes, "it's for kids" warrants a greater degree of oversight; not a lesser one. The key question to ask of the purveyors of things that are for kids is, "Are you serving kids, or are you exploiting them?"

Not that I'd declare the simple act of wanting to sell products to children, exploitation. I wish I could say I still enjoyed Pokemon the way I did when I was a child, and I suspect many people have the same wish. But here's what I think does qualify as exploitation, what earns the Pokemon anime the most scorn from me, and what makes "it's for kids" not a defense, but an extra strike against it: On top of its plots being lackluster, repetitive, and sometimes featuring resets of characters to near plothole levels, the problem is it preys on the ignorance of children to enable itself to keep doing that. Note that I explicitly said "ignorance", not youth, because this isn't about children being stupid or having different tastes. I do not believe, for a second, that children want to see Ash lose leagues, nor constantly swap out his older, stronger Pokemon for weaker ones, or suddenly get dumb and weak again, to ensure that he continues to lose leagues, nor abandon his human friends as he moves on in his vicious cycle of perpetually pupal failure.

The Pokemon anime is not going in that cycle because it's what children actually want to see; it's doing so because it deludes children into thinking that the things they actually want to see are just around the corner when they never actually are. (That, and because funds earned from selling games pay for this show, it doesn't have to worry if people are actually tuning in to generate ad revenue.) Whether it's Ash's constant refrain amounting to "I lost this league, but next time will be different; just you wait", the escalating of the closest he's come to a romantic relationship only to drop it, or the teasing of the Rockets having some depth that just gets neglected as they keep banging their heads against the protagonists, or momentarily developing some competence, which just like Ash's, can be reset at any time, this show continues to let generation after generation of viewers down because it's exploiting the ignorance of newer and newer viewers who don't yet realize they're caught in its trap, and that is disgusting.

There is something cynical about the show, in the way that it blatantly reuses assets and disregards its most recent batch of viewers. The show does bait viewers in to watching the next series, only to deliver something designed for entirely new viewers. I would absolutely not deny any member of that intended audience feeling let down by the show, nor would I ever question a parent or carer who wouldn't want to expose their children to this.

I will, however, question any older viewer who knows what they're getting into yet still feel the need to express their distaste for it on the grounds it's no longer satisfactory to them. Hence I will always say that people need to take responsibility for their own entertainment - they will always have the choice to watch or to not watch.

What makes it even more so, is it doesn't have to be this way. "It" meaning the Pokemon series and its merchandise-driven direction; fully acknowledged as a given unto themselves. The problem with the show is not that it exists to sell video games; it's that it insists on keeping around characters who have outlived their purpose and "continuing" their "story" on the side. The reason Ash gets the flak he does as a character, who hardly ever has a personality beyond "2BA Master" and is only occasionally even good at that, is because the showrunners insist on shoving him into the mold that's meant for brand new characters from the games. Likewise, Team Rocket is ineffectual because while the show is contorting itself to fit into the game plots, an effective arch-nemesis would just derail them. This anime is trying to be two antithetical things at once, and tragically it ends up worthy as neither. Things could be drastically improved if only they realized this, and it would make absolutely no threat to the existing business model, since it revolves around selling games that Ash (beyond certain special occasion Pokemon) isn't even in!.

I also agree with this. Pokemon is a show that is at once commercially and narratively driven, yet has made a number of questionable decisions when it's come to finding a compromise between those two interests. For example, I feel that the decision to retain Ash as the protagonist going into AG was initially a narrative one - a move to continue his adventure - but this clashed with the need to show off 100s of new Gen III Pokemon. Hence, the decision was taken to reset Ash's team bar Pikachu, essentially having him his start from scratch on the premise that he was still accumulating experience as a trainer. On a similar note, I've long argued that Ash's defeats in the leagues has become their "get out" card, as it enables them to bridge into a new season without the hassle of dealing with the consequences. The defeats are made much worse by how little impact they have on the narrative and Ash's character.

Again, these are the sorts of thing I won't defend, because ultimately I think the show can make changes to improve for everyone, not just me. I would totally want my kid or my nephew to watch a show which explores defeat in its entirety, because I feel that would be an important experience for them. Ash's current flippant attitude to it is inadequate in that sense.

Again, it's not like such revisions would make the show more "adult". There's scant evidence that it would go against what children want to see. What it would do is offer a sense of satisfaction to viewers who had been there for a while. It's not about age; it doesn't matter if they were ten when they started and are now twelve, or eight when they started and are now ten. It's about getting your time investment rewarded with something big actually happening.

Here is where I don't entirely agree with you, because what qualifies as a satisfactory reward on time investment is dependent on the viewer. Given the sheer multitude of reasons why people watch the show, it'd be very difficult satisfy everyone. Perhaps to me and you it's not satisfactory, but if I don't feel satisfied watching, I find it much more effective to simply stop watching it rather than demand it changes to suit my needs.

 

[Ryu Taylor]

Anybody, no matter who, has the right to call something good when they think it is and bad when they think it is.

We all know how I roll: having come to admire the dub and despise the JP version, I'm within my rights to explain why, as I have before.

 

[Bahmo]

On a similar note, I've long argued that Ash's defeats in the leagues has become their "get out" card, as it enables them to bridge into a new season without the hassle of dealing with the consequences.

You know, I've thought about that stuff a lot, and I must say, I'm really not sure if the "consequences" they presume exist actually do. Because Ash is constantly sending his older, stronger Pokemon away to start fresh each region, the basic reason being he doesn't want a team too strong to make his new adventure boring, whether "too strong" means "strong enough to qualify for the championships" or "strong enough to win the championships" is irrelevant. Ash could be allowed to win the a championship and it wouldn't matter. Again, I won't deny that I'd prefer Ash moved on and the show centered on someone else, but if they want to keep him on, there's no real reason him winning for a change would hamper that. The simple fact that Ash won the Orange Island Championship and stayed his course proves that.

The defeats are made much worse by how little impact they have on the narrative and Ash's character. Again, these are the sorts of thing I won't defend, because ultimately I think the show can make changes to improve for everyone, not just me. I would totally want my kid or my nephew to watch a show which explores defeat in its entirety, because I feel that would be an important experience for them. Ash's current flippant attitude to it is inadequate in that sense.

Yeah, really. I've heard various people defend Ash's constant league defeats as teaching children the valuable lesson that "It's okay to lose"; children must learn humility. But even if that's true, I'm not convinced the showrunners are thinking of it in those terms. If they felt it important for children to learn humility, they would have written Ash's attitude as moving away from his old glory-hounding mold. I'm not familiar with the more recent seasons, so for all I know it did, but I'd wager it isn't too much changed considering the basic plot of the show doesn't evolve. Bringing us to:

Here is where I don't entirely agree with you, because what qualifies as a satisfactory reward on time investment is dependent on the viewer. Given the sheer multitude of reasons why people watch the show, it'd be very difficult satisfy everyone. Perhaps to me and you it's not satisfactory, but if I don't feel satisfied watching, I find it much more effective to simply stop watching it rather than demand it changes to suit my needs.

You're right there; I grant that I can't speak for the masses of children. To be fair, I'm not sure the showrunners can, either, since it's almost certainly the success of the Pokemon games, and not the success of their show itself, that keeps it going. However, if I can't actually assess what children want from the anime, it is at least easier to deduce what the anime wants them to want...which is Ash winning a league championship. There might be other things on the side, but considering the all-important fact that this is the key point of the video games, that's the direction his character is pointed and flaunted.