Okay, how many episodes did you watch? Because the repetition is part of the appeal. Once the writers, over the course of the first five or so episodes, pound the formula into your head, they start futzing with it. Catchphrases start migrating. Which characters get involved with which stock plots gets messed around with. Candace starts testing how exactly P&F's stuff disappears before their mom sees it. And, perhaps best of all, the Contrived Coincidences that resolve the plot start becoming less telegraphed and sometimes don't even pay off at all.
I wouldn't go as far as to call it a deconstruction of Strictly Formula, but it's as close as any kid's show is going to get.
As for Candace being a Butt Monkey, you'll notice that the more time she puts into worthwhile, sociable pursuits, the more she's rewarded for it, and a lot of time is spent showing that her fixation on her brothers is not healthy and her life improves when she doesn't meddle in their affairs and instead pursues her own happiness.
I don't get your quibble with logic, unless you just kind of don't cartoons period, and if that's the case nothing's going to convince you a certain amount of irreverence is a good thing. And morals? Well, I don't think that they are or should be inherent in "good writing". But that's subjective.
I hate it when reviewers comment on a review and say "oh, you just haven't watched a lot of it, it gets better", but in this case the entire show is spent taking apart the first handful of episodes, so I feel that mitigates that somewhat.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.
Candace does begin to get moments where her life goes right and she gets some happiness, particularly with her boyfriend, but the show always walks a fine line as far as that goes (especially as, in some ways she's almost* the real protagonist. There are a lot of episodes that focus on her doing her stuff whilst the boys magic plays out in the background)
Because morals aren\'t necessary for good writing? This show had the audacity to be a pure comedy in a landscape of serialized cartoons, and it succeeded far beyond what anyone would have expected. The characters are likeable, comparing Candace to Meg is laughable, and your entire mindset seems to be \"edgy teenager who avoids kiddie things\".
If you're going to put up a review of something, MAKE SURE IT HAS A PAGE FIRST!Leave a Comment:
I Don’t get the Hype
So, I finally sat down and watched Phineas and Ferb to see what all the fuzz is about.
I still don’t get it.
My first problem with the show is that it is non-repetitive. And by “non-repetitive” I, of course, mean “completely repetitive.” I know, this is a frequent criticism, but there’s a reason for that. I mean, seriously, how often can you laugh about Dr. Doofenshmirtz saying that line? In my case, the answer is not even once — which brings me to my next point:
Not a single one of the jokes made me laugh. One was so hackneyed that I actually facepalmed (“Dr. Doofenshmirtz is at it again. It appears that he’s purchased a string of odd items. One pound of blood sausage- Er, that’s my grocery list.”).
I was also rather put off by the fact that Candace is a Butt Monkey bordering on Meg Griffin levels. Are we really supposed to find it funny that the universe is apparently conspiring to make her miserable? This becomes particularly cruel in Flop Starz where for a moment it looks like things are finally going to work out for her. But nope! Her reward for being nice to her brothers is having her hopes swiftly crushed.
I would also like to question the claim that the show is well-written. Not due to the reasons I mentioned above, but because the fact that the show isn’t constrained by the things that characterize good writing seems to make this claim fundamentally absurd. The writers don’t have to worry about making sense. Phineas and Ferb can just become a successful band in a few hours, but that’s okay because it’s lampshaded. This wouldn’t be considered good writing in a show where it actually mattered. Also, most episodes (this includes all the ones that I have watched) don’t have an underlying theme or moral. It’s just wacky hijinks. I therefore fail to see how any show of this format, regardless of whether or not I like it, could be used as an example of good writing, because it doesn’t play by the rules of good writing. The term doesn’t seem to be applicable in the first place.