Meh, I just hope next week's episodes are better (or at least funnier.)... Whatever they were doing in the first segment, especially - it would have worked better if the focus was on Tilly. She could have this actually work and be funny at the same time, which is essential to a good comedic cartoon in general.
It really doesn't help that even the likes of Clarence, Craig of the Creek, The Loud House, and definitely Harvey Beaks (all shows I like to varying degrees, BTW)? All 4 have had the common courtesy to not fall into this cliche trap and have all, in one way or another, come off as far more watchable and enjoyable shows as a result of avoiding this god-awful cliche these writers forced on Cricket - just to make him come off pretty damn unlikable as a result, IMHO.
Second segment was alright - but that's not really saying much.
>>105699746>>105700168Going outside of that, you both made some good points about why doing this kind of setup just doesn't work with Cricket. This setup would, again, work better with Tilly - simply because she's much likely more smart and mature about this kind of thing. Doing this setup with Cricket was an absolute mistake and it only makes him look very hate-worthy (if not, even more-so, now - than usual for most people watching this show and not liking him to begin with.) as a character on his own merits (or lack thereof, again - to anyone who hated Cricket to begin with.).
And again, Clarence? Craig of The Creek? The Loud House?? Harvey Beaks?? All 4 shows have handled this kind of thing far better by NOT falling to this level of annoying & stupid that no one should really be doing anymore, unless the character is capable of being able to be crushed on without acting fucking 4 about it like Cricket does here, which is what sucks hard about it.
