>>119805512And here's how you're wrong.
>If asking for season 2 to be like season 1 is “autistically high standards” No.
Saying
>sparkly flashy zam pow eliminates all stakes and destroy any semblance of risk is autistically high standards, can't even dissect your own points or what I'm addressing, for fuck's sake.
>“autistically high standards” is being used in place of “good”It's being used in place of you being a picky sperg complaining about something that has no effect or bearing on the quality of the story and bears no change to it compared to season 1 but matters to you for no apparent reason.
>the implication that you “shouldn’t be watching children’s cartoons if you [want something good]” The implication is that what you want doesn't make something better or worse, it makes you dumber for saying the quality somehow dropped because they cast spells with a wand and chanting incantation now instead of cutting someone's hair and dropping it in a tide pool and chanting an incantation.
I think you should steer away from it if something so irrelevant makes this worse for you, because these expectations are autistic.
And my mentioning that it's a children's media is in reference to you saying there were stakes and risks, there weren't. And it's not indicative of the show being bad, just that's it's made in mind with an audience - and with it a rating that doesn't allow it to show consequences of stakes or risks.
