Reviews Comments: ADHD: The TV Show
ADHD: The TV Show
The one main reason that makes me dislike this show so much (aside from the many other reasons) is that it can't calm the hell down. It NEVER takes a break. Every scene has to have some sort of over-the-top preformance, obnoxiously loud guitar riffs, half-assed action scenes riddled with cliches, or a flimsy attempt to tug at my heartstrings. That being said, there are other reasons that make me dislike this show. One of them being character development. In that there is none. The characters are one-dimensional, bland, and mostly stereotypes (super-secret government agents wearing black suits, geeky science nerds wearing glasses, etc.). The characters aren't just bland, though, they're also unlikeable. Johnny is a little prick who deliberatley does bad things without any remorse (or consequences). His dog Dukey tries way too hard to be a comic foil and just comes off as being annoying. Johnny's sisters constantly oogle over Gil (even though he's got the mental capacity of a squirrel) when they could be using their science skills to do something like, oh I don't know, find a cure for cancer. Johnny's dad is a ponce to the point where he has to reassure himself that he probably loves his son. Johnny's mom seems to be the only sane character in the series, and she's not even used that much. You know when I said the show flimsily tries to tug at my heartstrings? I wasn't kidding about that. Occasionally the show will have a "sad" moment where reused guitar stings pluck quietly in the background and the characters make an unemotional speech about the moral or something. When these scenes happen, I can't help but sit back and laugh because of how little emotion the characters put into their speech. In conclusion, I'm disappointed. I know that Cartoon Network can do better than this, because they have, several times. Though I am happy with the new shows coming out like Regular Show and Adventure Time, and look forward to new episodes of those.
Maybe you should go watch something that isn't a comedy.
comment #8728 eveil 18th Jul 11
That was uncalled for. Trying too hard and having unlikable characters are not concepts iconic of comedy.
comment #8729 Shortcake 18th Jul 11
Here's an idea: Why don't you think "Hey, maybe this guy's addressing the fact that all of these complaints are aimed at a non-comedic show" rather than "Hey, this guy is defending the show, everything he says is wrong!"
comment #8730 eveil 18th Jul 11
And here is an idea for you: Why don't you think "Hey, maybe this guy legitimately thinks that remark was uncalled for" rather than "Hey, this guy has a contrary opinion, he must have a really shallow and invalid reason for it!" On a less condescending note, I don't understand why you're saying that these complaints are aimed at a non-comedic show. Do you mean that they are only valid towards non-comedic shows?
comment #8731 Shortcake 18th Jul 11
Suggesting that he watches something that isn't a comedy because most of his complaints are only valid at non-comedic shows is now considered insulting? Comedic shows can get away with having a crappy plot, unlikable characters, and a lack of character development. Shows like the Simpsons do this all the time. Whether or not the show is actually funny is another story.
comment #8732 eveil 18th Jul 11
So essentially you are saying that those who do not share your opinions should quit watching this genre? Those things do not factor into your enjoyment of a show, but they factor into his.
comment #8735 Shortcake 18th Jul 11
Is there something wrong with suggesting that you avoid watching shows that aren't tailored to your particular tastes now?
comment #8736 eveil 18th Jul 11
From the last line of his review, it's clear that he enjoys comedy and simply does not like this show. Saying that someone should stop watching an entire genre because he doesn't like one show is idiotic.
comment #8737 Shortcake 18th Jul 11
Then quit watching that particular type of comedy?
comment #8738 eveil 18th Jul 11
No. Disliking one show means that you should stop watching that show. Not a genre. Not even a subgenre. One show. If you don't like a genre, then that's a separate issue. You're assuming that he does not have a problem with this show, but the entire (sub)genre that it's a part of. This is not necessarily true.
comment #8739 Shortcake 18th Jul 11
When the complaints you have about a show apply to an entire (sub)genre, then it's about time to consider watching a different (sub)genre.
comment #8740 eveil 18th Jul 11
My entire point is that they do not. Annoying characters need not be present in a comedy, nor does trying hard to be something that it is not.
comment #8741 Shortcake 18th Jul 11
I don't know whether the dog is "trying too hard", but there's an entire style of comedy where the main characters are complete idiots and/or assholes.
comment #8743 eveil 18th Jul 11
Very well, then he can stop watching those shows if he has a problem with them, but he may not know that they are of the genre before he sees them. As for "trying too hard", I was referring to the point in the review that the show often tries to use action and drama but is very incompetent at it.
comment #8744 Shortcake 18th Jul 11
This review came across as "complaining about genres you don't like" to me. If this review was just about the show not being funny, I'd say people find different things funny, but this review seems to be about things that an entire subgenre of comedy does all the time.
comment #8745 eveil 18th Jul 11
I agree...actually, I liked it better on Kids WB in its first season. The second—stay away from it.
comment #8862 Frankiefoster 24th Jul 11
@eveil Thats a damn lie,any comedy worth beans,no matter the subgenre if it's long term gives characters some hidden parts,for if they only have one part defined,the humor becomes stale. Even an Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonist is more than just a moron who makes a fool of himself. If he was flat entirely,no one would even go as far have no sympathy. Bart Simpson for example would've lost his edge the next episode if he didn't have limits,and if he didn't love Marge,a decent amount of the show would be scrapped And Homer is not your average idiot,he's a complete Wild Card that happens to be a Bumbling Dad Even [[King Arthur,Sir Bevedere,Sir Robin all the other guys Mony Python And The Holy Grail]] have some personality past the initial ones. And if you dare use Monty Python,need I remind you the sketches do not have recurring characters,so they don't need to be developed because frankly unlike Johnny Test we aren't supposed to want to know more. But I don't agree that it was better on WB,in fact I gave up after 15 mins. 5 mins of 3 episodes The review is clearly about how the show isn't funny and all that's wrong with it,nothing about any comedy subgenre,which it fails at even that. And its possible the reviewer didn't know about the subgenre it tried to do. So yes,what you said was very much condescending. If I read anything of what you said and the review right
comment #10387 terlwyth 29th Sep 11
^ what is wrong with you? And if you dare use Monty Python,need I remind you the sketches do not... you're the "only one" talking about Monty Python, "you're" the one who brought it up...on "your" post...you're "only" post....which is was the "last" one until this one.
comment #10391 marcellX 29th Sep 11 (edited by: marcellX)
"Wrong, as usual. Family Guy, American Dad, Panty and Stocking, South Park, and 8-bit theater are all examples that support my case. There are plenty of people who find those funny, even if you don't." Except those shows actually have (or in some cases had) enjoyable characters, meaningful development, and actual cool action/comedy that can be comprehended and appreciated by those beyond the age of 6. If you think an entire show can be funny just based around characters being idiots, you have poor standards of comedy. Even if you were watching something like 3 Stooges there would be expectations for the show. How funny do you think it'd be if one of the brothers started stabbing, pain-fully abusing or murdering the others and going on to rape people beyond the mere 'slap-stick comedic humor'? It would quickly turn into a horror film, the comedy would lose out. These kind of shows just aren't funny, even if the characters are sociopaths we like to know are at least human beings or have other traits besides just being sociopaths. Cue in to Peter complaining about shows/movies/actors, Stan ranting about America,Eric being a stupid fatass,Stocking eating pudding, and so on. I'll repeat it, there's nothing funny about a bunch of characters acting stupid/insane/murderous until the contrast is set that they have actual personalities before they're destructive. If that doesn't happen, they cease to be characters and no humor forms, it's just watching a horror genre or what-not. Do you ever notice no matter what comedy you see, be it Looney Tunes, the Office, Family Guy or 8-bit, you are always rooting or 'liking' one character or another. This, in rare cases can be inherent in some other features such as the character designs (happy tree friends, maybe Friendship is Magic although that has actual good characterization) but other then stylistic choices empathy needs to be there before humor. The viewer needs to really like or love them and their antics rooting for them,or hate/sympathize with them and laugh at their misfortune. A character that's merely brash, obnoxious and annoying doesn't qualify, you just wish they'd go away. Everything I'm stating is inherent in this 'sub-genre' of humor and many beyond it, unless you have surreal or absurdity humor like in Monty Python where the characters are just devices. Take most of fox's failed shows; whenever they introduce them, the consistent problem seems to be that the characters on every one are so damn unlikeable. (I found an exception or two on 'Bobs Burgers' maybe) The newest flop, 'Allen Gregory', has a 7 year old man-child act like a complete and total ass-hole to everyone he meets in an elementary school while giving the rest the characterizations of well.. a 7 year old (Patrick ). It's one thing to make your jerkass protagonist a sexist, misogynistic, racist insensitive pompous egomaniac, but if you don't give them any traits or redeeming qualities then who the fuck gives a shit about them. I suppose If I kept watching I might hate him enough that seeming him killed or brutally tortured might offset it, but despite this a proposing black-comedy genre it seems unlikely to happen, even in Family Guy that never extends beyond a mere cut-away or gag. No sort of reciprocation just pisses the viewers off, and Bad characters make for bad jokes. And no characterization or depth makes for really low-grade humor. But if you're into tasteless slapstick then simply turned up a bit then ... um... It's not the same as black comedy. That's like calling a shack or doghouse a mansion just because you took a magic-wand and enlarged it a hundred times in size. So what the main reviewer is saying is that the characterization in Test is so pathetically nonexistent there's no way to back up any of the humor behind it. "Why should I care if Johnny gets away with X stupid plot or the dog fixes Y, or any of the characters if they're both unlikeable." Is what the reviewer is trying to say. And I think on some levels he's right, but considering this is a kids show (for what, a demographic of children maybe 6-8? It's not supposed to be very high-grade humor.) I don't think the bar's set high enough to justify review he gave, when in context. You may disagree, but if so it's simply because you have a very different sense of humor then me and the reviewer to speak. I'm sure there's a cartoon equivalent to 'Laurel and Hardy' somewhere. Also, a million rumpus demerits for comparing Johny-Give-It-a-Rest to any of the half-qualitative crap you mentioned.
comment #10393 eveil 29th Sep 11 (edited by: brandygang)
Also, 'crappy plot, unlikable characters, and a lack of character development' The first and last are obviously untrue. You cannot have whole episodes of gags being delivered by flat-characters, it gets repetitive fast. But more importantly I think you're confusing the terms 'unlikeable' for 'unsympathetic'. They are not synonymous. One can have the former without the latter, but rarely the otherway around.
comment #11491 brandygang 22nd Nov 11 (edited by: brandygang)
I was trying to say this, but couldn't and ended up flatly decrying it on the basis of it being ripped off. You're right...all their sad moments have crappy pluck-the-geetar-strings sadness that I can't help but laugh at. One episode even has "sad Beethoven music" played on a stereo while Johnny gives his "Oh, I want to sled Beast Mountain" speech until his parents have had enough, caved in, and given the little weirdo the thing he wanted. Moral: you can always get what you want by begging and complaining, as long as there is a well-placed stereo and you can whine long enough.
comment #11501 Frankiefoster 24th Nov 11
^ you know I gotta call bs on that, you usually dislike things for petty reasons and when others gather and express they're more thought out reasons you always come up with the yeah that's right I was gonna say that too but <insert excuse>.
comment #11503 marcellX 24th Nov 11
can you guys please stop feeding eveil materiel. he does this on every review he comments on.
comment #18172 LostHero 11th Feb 13
Whoops, noticed i'm several months late. uhhhh carry on
comment #18173 LostHero 11th Feb 13
In order to post comments, you need to