Aubrey Plaza’s new animated cat comedy, "Kevin", is so irretrievably bad it must never be allowed to happen again

Other option would be 'Kevin Can F*** Himself'. But that's more aggressive.

likewise i think this show is also going to kill people

“Handful of words in a raincoat” is much funnier than anything the show provides

There is something about bad works that bring out the finest of reviews - like the awfulness stimulates literary supremacy from writers. See 2026’s Melania for other recent examples of this.

The weird part is the joke kind of works in this context: > Kevin also has a protuberant a***, a fact that is repeated with a fervour that suggests the writers believe it to be powerful enough to merit a “long-running gag” badge. Except that it's Kevin, not Cupcake. So there's still no explanation for this joke.

Reminds me of Disenchant~~ed~~ment. Very often there would be what appears to be setup to a joke, but it would simply continue with no apparent punchline or point.

> “Because if you like what’s on the bottom, you are insane!” I don't want to be chicken little here, but I wonder if that is AI assisted joke writing. I get the premise, humans typically prefer the tops of cupcakes . It is not typical human behavior to prefer the bottom of a cupcake, thus anything that is atypical human behavior must be insanity! This is not an unusual "logical" jump that a lot of chatbots seem to make. Probably because their training material, sourced from the internet, is riddled with hyperbole. Hyperbole that is often employed for humor, thus hyperbole is how you write jokes if you are an LLM.

maybe it's one of those cringe awkward types of comedy.

I am reminded of a line from History of the World: > And of course, with the birth of the artist came the inevitable afterbirth - the critic.

Isn’t that an anti joke? The punchline is obviously “then you’re going to love what’s on top” but the joke is that they don’t use it. Genuinely asking because I haven’t seen it

*Wassup, bitches?!*

Reading that was all I needed to know

### Erica! You can't be here! This place is filled with children!

Bojack horseman was f****** brilliant

Easier to just go with the presets in illustrator then customize the system. Also alot of animation film students are taught creativity is bad because the public likes a certain look.

Plenty of new-ish American animated shows aimed at adults don't look like this and have unique art styles, or are much more experimental *(Scavenger's Reign, Long Story Short, Common Side-Effects, Smiling Friends, Primal, Helluva Boss, Carol & the End of the World, Pantheon, Fired on Mars, etc.)*. Quality of the shows aside - though I do think all of them are very good - you definitely can't say they look like your Paradise PDs or your F is for Familys But most of those shows are set up to fail by large studios because animation is a hard sell for general audiences -> therefore no one sees them, -> resulting in a self-fulfilling cycle of failure, -> therefore they aren't seen as successful enough to copy Meanwhile, a juggernaut like Rick & Morty that was given time and space to grow by Adult Swim, a network that genuinely cares about animation, becomes the template for everyone else to follow, because copying instead of innovating always leads to exponential growth and has never failed as a business practice ever (/s) A lot of shows that copy the industry leader like this are also made when non-animators (Aubrey Plaza w/ Kevin, Sam Means and Robert Carlock w/ Mulligan, Ben Hoffman w/ Hoops, Nick Kroll and co. w/ Big Mouth, etc) want to do animation without having a background in it, so they don't have a strong enough vision to bring about something unique

I work in this industry so I can tell you. My thought is: they don't but they do but they don't. I think one thing is we can definitely cherry pick examples but see that BoJack looks different from Simpsons looks different from Bob's Burgers looks different from Common Side effects looks different from Smiling Friends. Adult Swim thrives on its variety as do other networks. But also, we can see that Paradise PD looks like Bob's Burgers, Cleveland/American Dad/Family Guy are all the same look. A lot of anime looks pretty similar, etc. A lot of shows that get green-lit can be spinoffs, like the Big Mouth universe. And part of that is that you have a handful of studios doing the work of adult animation. And think about how Hanna Barberra and Disney all had similar looks before this time. They had similar artists, similar directors, similar styles they knew that worked and were on brand for what they sold to networks. Flintstones and Jetsons felt same-world, as did Yogi Bear. So do a lot of adult animation shows look like Bob's Burgers. That's because Bento Box is the animation studio and their style often just slightly tweaked for new shows, from Brickleberry to The Great North. You can tell the difference in styles from studios, from Bento to Titmouse. I think their collaborative teams create certain looks, kind of how you can expect a certain type of book from your favorite authors or a certain type of movie from your favorite directors. A24 and Annapurna movies have distinct vibes. Studios like it. Audiences like it. And they stick with what works. Another part is how shows are packaged and sold. If you notice most animated shows that have lasted have been artist or creator driven. A lot of shows nowadays seem to have a laundry list of A to B-list celebrities doing all the voices and some notable comedian showrunning. The ads are about the cast usually and not always the story. And math-wise, it's an easier sell. It's easy to think if you combine the bankability The Office writer, actor, and showrunner Mindy Kaling with the property of Scooby Doo that you should get a financial return. After all, her projects have probably pulled in billions. It's more likely she'll succeed than some newbie or young professional out of CalArts or RISDI. However Pixar and Family Guy both came from no-name creators building up from those schools. And what we got from Kaling, who I think is incredibly talented even if this show wasn't loved, was Velma. What this does is create shows that get packaged similar. The writing is very sitcomy. The actors are recognizable, and thus become lovable but also predictable in a way. And it feels like an easier sell, but when it comes back to us as the audience, it's still a sell rather than appealing to the heart of what animation audiences love and find timeless (which also sometimes many not be as profitable). With that often comes a style of animation palatable to audiences that looks good compared to 50 years ago, but lacks some of that charm. The sitcom lives in many ways in animation now. And with that often comes that art safeness that feels comforting. They're often produced less expensive than other ambitious shows. And to hit those lower budgets, animation is often shipped overseas and to multiple teams. To hit tight deadlines and consistency, you use a type of animation style called "rig animation." Basically, you take one drawing as your starting point. One pose. And you move the pre-built arms and legs around, pose them, etc. So instead of having some fluid animation with constant body/everything being re-drawn, you have the same face and body with moving mouths and eyes and some hands. The drawing is minimal compared to drawing something elaborate a hundred times in a row. So the shows tend to all have a similar look of a character in a wide with a 3/4 body pose moving in a limited way. And again, that's not a bad thing if audiences like the story and the vehicle to tell it, the animation, is delivering what it needs. A lot of times, repeatedly successful showrunners will be given new shows in this space. And so a handful of voices end up being very influential. And there will be some version of sameness because it's proven what audiences like. They like working with their artists and teams and build a rapport and trust over time. And that can be both good and bad. Family Guy gave us American Dad and people love both. BoJack and Tuca and Bertie were both loved. But sometimes for creators the magic creates a profitability, but a staleness with the audience. Think Tim Burton with Beetlejuice and Beetlejuice 2, as I just can't think of an animation example off the top of my head at the moment. I argue that Animation actually thrives when creators are given the chance. Joe Bennett is on a tear right now with Scavenger's Reign and Common Side Effects. Mike Judge gave us Beavis and Butthead and King of the Hill and most people wouldn't recognize him in a supermarket. People know Hank Hill more than they know Mike Judge. Beloved shows without the "safe" choices being made. Usually there becomes a newness when these creator-driven shows push on what they know works. Actors who don't get play elsewhere giving it their all and doing something different. Creatives taking risks. They push style and story and creativity, with big swings hitting or missing. But when it feels like the same people being pushed on us in the same sales package, it feels repetitive and underwhelming. Most of us don't remember Jon Hamm in Grimsburg. But that type of show will still be pushed and dominate our perception. And also, what's lasted to this point are a lot of the biggest shows that, even if you don't like them, are consistently entertaining. They're in 10+ year runs. Bob's Burgers. Family Guy. South Park. Beavis and Butthead and King of the Hill are back. Futurama is on and off again. And they stay timeless for audiences. And if it all feels the same, it's because it hasn't all necessarily changed on the large scale for 20 years.

I'm convinced these shows are for middle school boys and no one else. It let's them feel like they're watching something only grown-ups are allowed to watch, when in reality they're the only ones who find the jokes funny. They all look the same and have the same humor.

Check out Common Side Effects. Great show with a very unique animation style. Wish more people were talking about that one, wouldn't mind seeing more like that.

Literally. You know if it looks like this it's gonna suck ass lmao

Problem is I only find out about the good ones when they are cancelled. Usually on a cliffhanger.

Streaming could be seen as something adjacent to that. That project was likely greenlit over others that may have been better but didn’t carry as much star power.

And they choose to cancel their best ones like Paper Girls, I’m a Virgo, and Peripheral. 

Big Mouth is supposedly because it was a show about children going through puberty, and they wanted to make it as aggressively unsexy as possible to avoid attracting the wrong audience.

>Firmly Meh. That was my problem with it and I agree with the reviewer. The comedic talent *behind* this is amazing and they constantly push out what seem jokes too low brow for the Family Guy writers room. It should be better and it was terrible.

What's the second one?

Yes, a million times yes

Damn. That’s a brutal line lol. I guess I somewhat get it because you’re a professional and critics are going to have a higher standard but holy cannoli - dead mothers is crazy lmfao.

Reading this review from the Guardian is a ton more amusing than the show could ever be.

At this point it's just: former star of well know documentary comedy That's all you need to get something like this going. I think nick offerman had one, Aubrey plaza does, Mindy kaling, nick kroll. It's like snl in the 70s and 80s but none of the projects they are working on are in any way funny

Can we get another season of Inside Job while we're at it?

Same. I thought that show was really good.

Brickleberry had some jokes. SOME. This one has nothing. Just went to check the first ep and it's literally that. Talking words and saying gross things in a random way. Not interesting, not funny. Nothing.

See also Zoe Deschanel

Velma? Holy c*** that was garbage

Amen. When I watched the trailer, I hard cringed, and thought the same thing, I can't stand that animation/cartoon style and the dialogue and tone/delivery were awful.

I just finished reading the review, and its a pun within the context that the show cant stop talking about the cat's prolapsed a***. The final line is, "the show is as irretrievable as Kevin's a***".

"Irretrievably bad" implies that something cannot be dragged back from the precipice of suckiness. It's not the word I would have chosen, but it does create a picture in one's mind of a plot physically going so far astray that it cannot be returned to its natural course.