The Old Disney

I know it's not your intention, but as a storyteller, I find this insulting.

He's not talking about teaching lessons like toddler shows do; those are completely different things.

One of the first thing I learned in screen writing was the importance of theme. Every good story, let it be in movies or television to whatever, has a central focus. It brings in two opposing forces, shows both sides, and asks the audience what they took from this.

Most shows for kids, teen, YA shows in right now don't have any focus. It just good set piece to set piece, joke to joke. It's firm to like it, but it has no substance.

However, I've been watching Girl Meets World with my younger siblings, and I'm pleasantly surprised by how they try to avoid the cheap joke and try to have strong emotional moments. Yeah, sometimes they have jokes that really don't work, but I feel that's more for the audience that wants mindless entertainment, simply because they want to those people watching so they have good ratings. They are trying to make something good that does teach lessons, and trying is the whole point.

 

Hilter was right is an opinion. Doesn't mean we can't argue against that opinion. Stating that the argument is irrelevant because it all boils down to personal preferences (which I also think is wrong) neither defeats my argument nor defeats the point of arguing.

 

Finally, someone who speaks English.

 

Just gonna jump over whatever it is you guys are talking about and address the "TV has gone downhill" thing
It... really hasn't. If you think that then you really just don't appreciate how bad most of the stuff on TV was the further back in time you go
On the moral element... the issue is that at its core humour is about subversion, and subversion and an honest moral is very difficult to mix. You're liable to make the moral sound hollow, or distort the meaning.
On Disney as a whole... I'd much sooner blame writers and popular trends than assume that a gigantic company like Disney has a cohesive motive of any sort

 

Amaury, you need to understand that you can look at things with objectivity and without opinions. Objectively I can say Neon Genesis Evangelion isn't a great show, there are a whole load of flaws with it that I can see and examine objectively, but that won't stop it from being my favourite anime of all time. If people couldn't look at media like TV shows objectively, reviews would be a pretty horrible medium.

Spoiler

 

you can't -objectively- say things are good or bad. Acknowledging what you find good and bad doesn't make something objective. There is no actual way to prove something's quality, so you can't objectively say something about that. You can objectively say what you THINK, because that's a absolute, or you can objectively say that something is a certain colour, but quality is a completely nebulous concept

 

There are lots of ways to objectively look at TV shows other than just "it was good" or "it was bad". You can say objectively, for example that there were holes in the plot, or if it set out to be something and didn't live up to that expectation. Generally what I'm talking about is faults in the story or concept. The actual audio/visual presentation can't be looked at objectively.

 

You can objectively say that, yeah (well, not always, it has to be a definite plot hole that can't be explained away. Stuff like a character not acting a certain way is not a plot hole)
But you can't actually say whether these flaws make it good or bad objectively. Star Wars is generally regarded as a good movie, but it's full of problems. Generally people's ability to ignore flaws determines what they deem quality.