>>101685796>The next generation of viewers will therefore only ever have the shitty reboot to base their opinions on the franchise as a whole.
Maybe so, but how about this? Oldfag here. I felt the same "ruined childhood" thing when 1987 DuckTales ignored and perverted the then-current Uncle Scrooge comics that I loved. It flanderized some characters, ignored others, and was largely about orgasming over its own Gary Stus.
And I knew immediately that for a lot of people, Duckburg would FOREVER be this shallower TV version of itself.
...Well, on some level that's true, and now we even have fans of 1987 feeling THEIR Duckburg has been ruined by the 2017 version (as I'd argue it has).
And yet... somehow the comics persevere too, with tons of reprint books and, it must be admitted, viewers from the various TV shows, however inaccurate, more likely to discover them.
I'm not saying suckier reboots should never be criticized, but I AM saying that from all evidence, they don't really destroy the better stuff from earlier, nor do they keep new people from discovering it.
As far as I can see, a lot of good 1930s and 1940s cartoons that had shitty revivals in the 1960s and 70s (Popeye, Tom and Jerry, Felix the Cat) went through their own versions of this in their time.
The reboot often got popular in itself, even as it was mocked for its shittiness, but it couldn't destroy the best of the original in people's minds. And often it brought new fans to the original.
Go ahead and dump on a shitty reboot: I do. But to take it as personally as some here do, to the point of harassing the creatives involved, is WAY too strong. (Especially when many associated with a show have no say over the actual creative decisions, and may have just taken the job to put food on the table when nothing else was available.)
End of rant...