As much success/popularity as MOTU has had, I think there's also a reason why it's never taken off again like it's original run. None of the reasons why people say it's good are reasons to make enough people like it now.
>>8779357>>8779366I have a theory that the time period was unique for having the most children watching, which is why nothing in the same medium has had brands of the same popularity.
>>8779367It's a very particular blend though. In different mixtures you get Phantasy Star. or Adventure Time.
Sort of realistic matte painting backgrounds and implications of grimdark, but then it's full of comedy and whimsy and kitschy characters, that look like wrestlers playing B-movie villains.
>>8779497Yeah but what PART of the 80's shit?
I love the campy colors, and the combo of ridiculous themes and creepiness, but NOT the body proportions of dwarf-legs and muscles inflated with a bicycle pump. Which is why I hate any retro figures, normal size or tiny rip-off at the same cost as MOTUC/200X.
Oh and maybe the homo-eroticisim. Pre-JoJo.
>>8779520>The 2002 revival was NOT enduring compared to Transformers or TMNT.Was it bad? The aesthetics were peak MOTU for me, but no idea about the story. I watched the original cartoon as a kid, but just like my main brand Transformers, I'm mostly don't care or dislike the original show. {though I do have some weaknesses for the TF show/comic, it's mostly critical.} Maybe I should look up Nielsen ratings for the 200X series.
>>8779841I think I made a realization: ALL stories are analogous.
What makes it resonate is when you can see how it's analogous to you, either from similarity, or knowledge to cross a more obscure distance {which can be provided within the fiction explicitly or implicitly, or be brought with the viewer}.
If MOTU isn't relevant to the modern audience, it's because the analogy is not as accessible.
