Hacker Cinema
Steven Universe
2013 · TV series · 11 min episodes · 5 seasons
Created by Rebecca Sugar
AnimationActionAdventureComedyScience FictionFantasyFamily
A young boy takes his mother's place in a group of gemstone-based beings, and must learn to control his powers.
8 positive1 negative1 mixed6 neutralfrom 16 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
17 comments on Hacker News
Some are for sure, but a lot of those shows hold up well for all ages. I don't put much faith in marketers to decide which shows are for what demographics. Better to see what lands for yourself. It helps when you're watching and discussing the shows with your kids too.
Some of them, Adventure time being a great example, can appeal to very young kids but they'll find new meaning in those episodes as they get older.
I think shows like Infinity Train, Avatar the Last Airbender/Legend of Korra, Steven Universe, and Samurai Jack will be better after a kid is old enough that Cocomelon wouldn't hold any appeal, but even at that age Sarah & Duck, Hilda, MLP, Craig of the Creek, etc could still be good. Just about anything that holds their attention and isn't Cocomelon is a huge win. If you'll enjoy it, all the better.
I'm not sure there's ever been more options for good shows that a parent can watch and genuinely enjoy with their kids. Try Avatar the Last Airbender/Legend of Korra, Hilda, Sarah & Duck, Adventure Time, Miraculous, The Dragon Prince, MLP Friendship is Magic, She-Ra and the Princess of Power, Samurai Jack, Gravity Falls, Ducktales (the new one, but the old one isn't bad either), Cleopatra in Space, Amphibia, Star vs. the Forces of Evil, Owl House, Craig of the Creek, Steven Universe, LEGO Elves, Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts, Over the Garden Wall, Infinity Train, and the Disney Fairies movies.
I'd also recommend getting your hands on the cartoons you enjoyed as a kid. Odds are good your kids will like them for the same reasons you did, although you may find that they don't all hold up for you.
Anime is much better at action animation than anyone else, simply because noone else remembers how to do it because they've stopped trying.
I'm not sure if I'll be able to find this, but there's an episode of Steven Universe with an extended reference to a scene from Kill la Kill of a transformation sequence.
It looks maybe 1% as good; not only that, but the character turns into a pure white silhouette for the entire transformation because it doesn't have a character design suitable for being transformed. (Instead it has one designed to make the animators' lives easier.)
I feel what you say too, that all the content feels samey. But I'll offer a suggestion that works for me: try some animation. That's where you get the passion projects that can feel different. Animated characters and settings can be far more expressive and varied and fresh, compared to the stock sameyness you get from live action.
The new She-Ra on Netflix was the best thing I've watched in quite some time. It's not a kiddie show, it works for all ages, think like Pixar movies. Other great cartoons across a variety of streaming services: Steven Universe, Gravity Falls, Owl House, Star Trek Lower Decks, also the more mainstream Bob's Burgers. If you want something fresh to watch, try animation.
This used to be a more common thing, including on the mainland. It's still depicted in TV and film, sometimes. There's a (probably intentionally goofily anachronistic) political ad van featured in Steven Universe, for instance. There's also one (in the "present day", that is, 1985) in Back to the Future.
I want to push back on this idea. Back in the heyday of JohnK's blog, "CalArts style" referred to a kind of post-Disney/Don Bluth character design language that typified theatrical animation in the 90s. If you look at the late 90s/early 2000s wave of films, things like Titan A.E., The Iron Giant (which was better than most), Atlantis: The Lost Empire, etc -- a lot of them have a Milt Kahl knockoff look because that's what was the gold standard at CalArts at the time. JohnK's complaint was that young animators were aping superficial Disney-isms and making derivative crap instead of creating original design systems.
Fast forward 20 years, and what people mean when they say "CalArts style" is completely different. They're talking about the geometric, flat graphical character designs of things like Gumball, Steven Universe, Clarence, and Gravity Falls (i.e., the "bean mouth" era). This is all TV animation (theatrical 2D animation is deader than disco), and it's partly driven by the mechanics of modern digital animation production. It's also same-y and safe, but for different reasons.
I'd argue that the time period plays a more important role there than the gender, considering the kind of mobs I've seen on Tumblr and communities for TV shows (Steven Universe/Adventure Time/Gravity Falls comes to mind).
Steven Universe.
You will get the impression in the first 20-30 10-minute episodes that the show is really fun but nothing special. It builds so slowly you don't even notice, then it really takes off.
I was rocking along with this and then BAM a slam on Steven Universe out of nowhere.
It's all subjective, of course, but personally, I've found SU to be rock solid. The main arc is there, but the stand alone eps are just as valuable for that show. Not every episode of a show that doesn't obviously advance the main story arc is 'filler'. Some are just trying to tell a story. I notice that people tend to label those kinds of stand alone stories "filler" if they didn't like them.
I say this because I'm guilty of this kind of thing, too.
And that's not to say there AREN'T episodes of shows that are just spinning their wheels burning off quotas-- see the Arrowverse for lots of THAT. Oof.
This is why I've been increasingly becoming a fan of 13 episode seasons for some shows. Tell a good story. Get the hell out. Or if you just have 23 episode seasons, break it in half. Tell two solid arcs. Maybe bridge them if you must.
> Even Steven Universe which has a very straightforward story with an end planned feels bloated with a bunch of filler episodes and lazy character development.
The filler episodes are some of my family's favorites, however. I think the comparison is a bit premature compared to something like the Simpsons where every episode pretty much can stand alone.
Nothing lasts forever. Plain and simple.
I really dislike TV/Anime that never ends, seems to be the modus operandi for pretty much every mainstream show despite how bad the quality gets after 2-3 seasons.
Simpsons is a great showcase of the homogenization that every sitcom will go through given enough time. It starts out as a comedy with some wholesome family moments to bring it together but eventually every character is distilled to their most basic formula Homer -> Idiot who causes events to happen Bart -> Same as above Marge -> Straight man / Voice of reason or Satire of moralistic conservative adults depending on the situation Lisa -> same as marge but liberal piñata
Old episodes had genuine moments where you saw them become closer as family, now every episode is a hodgepodge of nonstop comedy.
Family Guy also went through this, especially after they got revived. The early episodes focused on the trials of the family with some goofy humor peppered throughout (Peter getting fired, Louis dealing with being a bored housewife) but now its just nonstop comedy.
Once you get syndicated it's not about making good episodes just churning out 26 more a year and cashing in that paycheck.
Even Steven Universe which has a very straightforward story with an end planned feels bloated with a bunch of filler episodes and lazy character development.
I don't know why so many people here are suggesting "The Wire", unless they don't understand what the concept of a child is.
For incredible kids TV shows that emphasize empathy for "the bad guys", demonstrate the flaws and weaknesses of the "the good guys", and does so in a way that encourages personal growth, integrity, and compassion over moral nihilism as a response, then you can't do better than
* Steven universe
* Avatar: the last Airbender
You have made fact statements, not stated opinions, in addition to not providing any foundation to base those on which would be required by others regardless.
If I say "Show X is bad" then people will expect of me to back up this opinion somehow. This can be as easy as citing examples of why but not by handwaving as "I watched it and thought it was bad".
Example; I think Steven Universe is a bad show. I've watched it through to Season 2 yet I found it lacking in character attachment and depth, meanwhile the animation and storytelling was quite good. Overall I did enjoy it but not enough to keep consuming it.
That is how you should have approached this so people would not jump on you. You can explain it but lacking any explanation people will demand it.
I'm sorry but I can't let this one slide. Yes, children have been subjected to a slew of execrable sitcoms but at least in the realm of cartoons children's there is much that is of high quality. Adventure Time, Gravity Falls and Steven Universe roundly refute "universally terrible". Even the 2000s had Avatar, Samurai Jack, early Spongebob and Fairly Odd Parents. Other than nostalgia and smugness, I can't find any justification for claiming that none of it was as "mentally stimulating" as the 90s given how equally rife with garbage the 90s were.
This sounds like science fiction, which really tickles me in a positive way (as in, I am not criticizing it but rather it's highly exciting yet very fantastical compared to where physics was at when I studied it). I'd almost see this in an episode of Steven Universe[0], after the creators got stoned with a physicist one afternoon
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Universe
I've got a large amount of extended family and married friends, so good shows like these are super helpful in positively connecting with their kids. And shared media interests is actually part of a large social aspect of public school.
> Steven Universe
This show works incredibly well. Especially since the episodes are short - a feature for parents as well as kids. Gravity Falls, as well, does a great job of being fun without trying to do much preaching. Of course, some of the adult fandom for these can be a bit ... enthusiastic, so I worry about whether the kids will be able to enjoy themselves at conventions and on the internet without getting caught up in the drama.
Both of these shows have also garnered approval from some parents with some pretty insane control issues, too. In situations like that, it's nice to be able to provide gateway entertainment to kids languishing under extreme supervision. I doubt I'm the only one who's had to deal with that. It's surprising how many parents unwittingly rob their kids of a childhood. Being a non-parent in some ways gives a more even perspective about loosening the grip on the kids and not taking everything so seriously.
Shows like Regular Show and Adventure Time are pretty good, but some parents reject them for being "too stupid". Yeah, there's juvenile behavior, but it's not all over. When introducing parents to these, I sometimes have to be particular about which episodes I start with, or they'll immediately reject it.
I've introduced teens to shows like Rick and Morty and Star vs. the Forces of Evil. Parents are generally more accepting of more edgy material at that age. And they're gonna push boundaries, so at least point them to the better quality shows. Anime has also gotten hugely popular in this recent generation, to the point that some of my nieces and nephews seem to literally breathe it. Streaming subscriptions help with that, though available shows vary by licensing deals and region. Hulu is one of the best for cartoons.
It's also amusing that the creators of these shows are the recent adults who grew up on the last generation of entertainment cartoons.
Most American cartoons like that have very episodic designs. This presumably is great for business, as you avoid a series of uncomfortable questions about what happens to your cash cow when your series comes to an end or takes a turn that people aren't interested in anymore. It also means that new viewers are missing very little, so you can run a bunch of cartoons and not worry about getting people hooked up front in Ep 1 and you can experience business synergies from broadcasting a variety of cartoons and getting people to try new things (it's very low risk).
With live actors, I guess dealing with your stars is already a series-longevity issue, so maybe people are more willing to countenance finitude? And there are different kinds of hype-train available with real actors, and the audience for live shows has self-segregated.
My dream is that some day someone at Cartoon Network who watched Puella Magi Madoka Magica will get an experimental budget to launch a dozen episodes of a real, serious cartoon series with incredibly good writing, and win all the awards. (Bonus points if they also troll people into thinking it's fluff for the first two-and-a-half episodes and try to break their minds.) In the meantime, I guess there's Steven Universe? which at least deals with serious issues a little (still in episodic ways)