>>128413380Good point of view. But as a work of art, you have to consider which purpose was it made, and then which utility it has.
The purpose was to bring Disney money from everywhere they could. But for them, it is easier to rely on old fandoms than create new ones. Covid just took them back to their comfort zone, and Amphibia was just lucky it was past the middle of the story. So both of them are equally bad.
For the average person, 30-year-old, not a fanatic and capable of following a long story for years, the Owl House is better storywise, but Amphibia is better entertainmentwise, yet probably BCG is a lot better. But in the end, that doesn't matter to Disney; not anymore.
Now, for perception, I go for the talent hypothesis. Amphibia works on 11-minute blocks, so there's the writer talent. You can't expect consistency on long plots; just a little of character development and random situations and then expect how they solve it, but you can't make them grow; you just make them more complex. The Owl House works on 22-minute blocks with a lot of cliffhangers and callbacks. But they also know how to close a story and teach them a lesson that sticks. But if they need to close the whole show on short notice, they may not have the time. Also, they can't throw the characters into an 11-minute episode and make it work as a funny stuff; that's why they rely on short jokes and backgrounds to put their one-shot gags.
Given the time, Amphibia won't know where to go, and the ending will be rushed. But if they couldn't change S2 on time, the Owl House cut short would let a lot of loose ends of stories were being developed and will feel rushed because of the complexity of the story, especially because you know it's ending and you need the problems to be solved.
