>>109123639>Because poor characterization means that the character was never good and/or declines in quality
And in the specific example we've been discussing, the episode "The Boy Who Would Be Queen" had development that showed a depth of character in Trixie that was then forgotten. That's a decline in quality. From a brief peak, but a decline nonetheless. As for Johnny Bravo, he's learned various lessons in the course of his adventures, which were promptly forgotten because of the show's episodic nature and because Johnny is a ditz. That characterization is consistent, and it works for a comedy show, but that's not the same thing as being the best possible option for all characters in any show that does any comedy. By the standards of comedy, Johnny is a good character, but by the standards of character development, he is not. Character development was not a purpose of Johnny's role in the story. Would you throw a fit if someone said that a fanfic about a long-term relationship between Johnny and Velma had better character development than the series? Because when two different works go for different goals, it shouldn't be surprising that a fanwork can do something better than something the original didn't consistently try to do, if at all.>And no, I didn't "imagine" things that you meant
Then you could give a quote.>You're defending this comic rather vehemently>and yet you've done nothing to really sing its praises
Do you see no conflict here? Am I defending the comic, or am I attacking sloppy criticism?>your "it did the characters better than most" comment
That's not what I said. You're aware that you can copy/paste from my actual posts, right? But at any rate, you're close to the issue. I haven't actually staked out bold claims, but for some reason, the statements that should have been non-controversial have prompted responses that act as if they're arguing with me, but don't actually contradict what I said. Which bears pointing out. And so here we are.