Contents show]

Introduction

It took quite bit of time, but finally, this collaborative effort is complete!

So, Mattalamode and I have decided to collaborate once more. This time we will be discussing Season 1. I'll try to defend Season 1 to the best of my ability and explain why I find it to be good while Mattalamode will be doing the polar opposite. Let's go.

Also, yikes. This turned out long.

Matt's Argument: "I'm Practically Coasting at this Point"

Since Since Guy and I previously collaborated to considerable success, indebted to him, I shall thus return the favor by completely discrediting him and objecting to all of his remarks with expected animosity. That's called having a healthy working relationship, right? Though I may have, in our last debate, taken the burden of an inevitable surrender by fighting a hopeless battle, I should think that our positions have been mercifully reversed. Granted, I don't think that Season 1 is without its merits, but if I'm asked to play the offensive and, in Guy's words, "grill the season hardcore," I'd be an idiot not to accept the offer. At the same time, I can only be terrified if he himself made the preposition that Season 1 was passable, which means he must have a great argument that I can't grasp. Either way, while I have the lead: Season 1 sucked hard. Thank you. While I could honestly just leave it at that (seriously, it's not that difficult of a viewpoint to defend), I suppose I'm obligated to pretend my defense isn't arbitrary. That's right. The big words are coming out. I'm not even sure if I used "arbitrary" right, but just for that second, you thought I sounded smart. Let's see if that mentality can carry over for the rest of my argument. There's a lot of issues with the show's first season, but we'll start with what gave the show its identity: humor. Watching TAWOG nowadays is a breath of fresh air: it's air-tight, fully-formed, and distinctive. However, such traits seemed only to allude the show so early on, instead being virtually the complete opposite: loose, half-baked, and woefully generic. We can call out the fact that the writers were new to writing such a show, but that they were able to do such a fantastic reversal with the next season only makes Season 1 seem worse. The change in quality is almost abrupt. It's as if the writers always knew what they wanted to do but instead fell back on the lowest common denominator for the sake of finding a dedicated audience which, ironically enough, cost them in terms of cultivating a dedicated audience at all. Unfortunately, quintessential to their appeals to a much younger audience was perhaps the bane of comedy: frenetic randomness. I get it, I'm a comedy elitist, but there's nothing good about randomness for randomness' sake. Comedy needs rhyme and reason - we need to be able to know why something is funny. Sure, we can say something's funny without knowing why, but there's still some part of the subconscious that can actually grasp that if we fail to articulate. Things happening without explanation and without care defy that. There's such a fine line that it can be troublesome when it comes to cartoons, but for the show's first season, the line couldn't be any bolder. That's not saying that a sudden, unexpected twist - a trademark of the show's present sensibilities - should be shunned, because that's not randomness. I don't mean that we have to be able to suspect the outcome; that would be terrible. It's just that there's a difference between "Holy crap, there were ashes in that vase, SHOCKING" and "lul, look he's naked again 'cuz Darwin ate his clothes, RANDUM :P," the difference being that one is proper and has actual conception motivating it and the other requires a tongue-out emoticon to contextualize, in words, the complete vacancy of thought. Random does not equal funny. It's not a hard rule. If anything, I'm sure it requires the extra mile to think devoid of reason, and if that only results in an unmitigated, horrendous amalgamation (triple word combo right there), then you shouldn't even bother. Compounding onto the spotty humor were equally spotty characters. Across every character in Season 1, only Nicole seems properly conceived, and even she was refined and perfected as the series progressed. The other characters, however, have little going for them. Obviously, we can call out Anais' tone-deaf "I'm the smart one and I'm surrounded by idiots" routine, as well as Richard being wholly lazy (and willing to throw his kids under the bus for the sake of preserving it), but let's just focus on Gumball and Darwin for the sake of simplicity, at least for the time being. I know that I've called Gumball vanilla before, but Season 1 transcends being that kind of refreshingly malleable: he's full-on generic. There's nothing distinctive about him or memorable about him as a character that really sets him apart. He existed entirely to be inoffensive, and while that's an easy way to create a character, it's a difficult way to leave an impression. Look at me, I've been trying for years. The reason that the show works so amazingly now is that it's not afraid to get dangerous with how it uses its characters, which is exciting, whereas here, Gumball's safe and comfortably nondescript. Darwin somehow pushes that featurelessness to unparalleled extremes to a point where he does practically nothing separate from Gumball. He's completely pointless, serving only as an agreeable sidekick who echoes all of Gumball's sentiments. The show does try to hide it by creating episodes where Gumball acts irrationally because of Darwin, like "The Secret," and episodes like "The Genius" that show his family unable to function without his presence, but even then, he lacks any independence at all. His position isn't changed - he's still dopey, oblivious, and taking up space - so much as everybody else's is, and his failure to similarly realign is frustrating to say the least. With no distinct voice or purpose, he simply exists as a prerequisite, and the sad thing is that he still hasn't shaken it off, that he's still perpetually sidelined to a point where even the most recent episodes ("The Ex," most glaringly) fail to use him as anything more than a prop. When you have characters that dull, you can't rely on them to motivate episodes. Instinctively, the show pulls one of the worst tricks out of the book as a thin cover-up: if they can't cause their own trouble, then use the powers of the universe to force them into adversity. By virtue of the stupidity of our two heroes, the frustrating principle of accidents prompting scenarios tainted the entire season. There's nothing exciting about the characters to a point where they have virtually no voice so much as the world around them is rooting for their destruction, all while they stare on obliviously. Nothing interesting is thrown into the formula either, short of literally handicapping the characters to a point where their ability to survive in modern society is thrown into question (see: "The Genius"). If the only way to get better scenarios is to somehow make your moronic cast impossibly narrow-minded, then we've got a problem. Also not helping? The entire supporting cast of the show. While nowadays I can praise the show for its diverse, carefully-conceived cast, the reason it's like that now is from reflecting upon the utter blandness of their Season 1 predecessors. The only merciful thing I can say about characters like Alan "No Hands - that joke's still funny, right guys?" Keane is that they were so underdeveloped that it invited a complete reformation of their character. Alan went from having no hands to being frustratingly altruistic and/or sociopathic. Banana Joe went from fart noises and insults to klutzy but sympathetic. Molly went from coincidentally boring to intentionally, mind-numbingly so. The list goes on. Heck, even the best offerings of Season 1 - "The Sock," "The Curse," "The Helmet," etc. - are only seen as great for the sake of coming off as in line with Season 2 and the show's current sensibilities. They don't stand on their own right, instead being praised for the sake of a cozy familiarity. There's not an issue with that, of course - good episodes should be praised - but the fact that we so quickly make that association rather than seeing them as Season 1 "staples" certainly isn't a good indication of the other episodes plaguing those early years. If you can find anything redeemable about Season 1 as its own, distinct item other than "It helped shape the rest of the series and make it as great as it is now" - a lazy argument that, having been called out for, I have since sought to avoid - then be my guest, because I can't. If you can find anything redeemable about Season 1 as its own, distinct item other than "It helped shape the rest of the series and make it as great as it is now" - a lazy argument that, having been called out for, I have since sought to avoid - then be my guest, because I can't.

Guy's Counter: "Why Did I Sign Up For This?"





Matt's Counter Counter: "This 'Counter' Phrasing Stuff is Going to Become Really Inefficient Really Quickly."

Say what you will about Season 1's charms, but even the best aspects of it aren't without an ugly drawback. When it does something right, it's at the cost of quality elsewhere. For this particular counter-claim, I'll stick to that general thesis. For instance: you say that Gumball is tolerable and that his his less-than-seemly choices can be defended as simply showing a childish lack of understanding. I can get behind that, but why does the show never suggest an evolution in his predispositions? The whole season becomes incredibly fatigued because it paints Gumball as trying to make sense of the world around him. Through it, though, he always takes every possible miscalculation, and worst of all, he never learns from any of it. Quite frankly, the show rinses and repeats with the frequency of a compulsive hypochondriac. At a basic level, his characterization shouldn't have even been as grating as it ended up. If he picked himself up after every mistake, reevaluated the situation, and showed some level of recognizing his own mistakes in the process, there would've been a lot more to appreciate, but instead, he never takes a hint from the world in spite of how horribly it treats him. He's adamant, but in the worst way possible. I can also understand Darwin's use as a younger brother-type figure who looks up to Gumball, but that doesn't mean he has to be so willing to follow Gumball's every command. It's a relationship that makes sense on paper but just doesn't feel real, and before you question the authenticity of the claims, I'm a younger brother myself. Assuming myself to be in-line with the younger brothers of America, here's where the show falls short of properly representing us: Darwin's too vacuous. He never questions anything, nor does he display any thoughts to the contrary. He accepts everything Gumball says as fact and is more than willing to oblige by his command and not question anything inflicted upon him. What the show does is represent half of the relationship: the sense that the older brother (ergo, Gumball) has a hard-headed sense of control over the younger brother, if not as a guardian than as an (in his mind) unquestionable leader. The problem is that Darwin plays into that belief without showing the other half: the reluctance and questionability of his assumed position. Let's talk about real life a bit. You're an older sibling, Guy. First of all: don't assume you get how our minds work, 'cuz you'll never know the pain, the torment, the [more synonyms for a greater conviction]. But really, though: imagine one of your brothers said, "Hey, big bro, [insert question you can't answer here]?" You can't just respond, "I don't know, that's how it is," and the question will be staved off forever. Younger siblings don't accept dismissal as an absolute, and they aren't all that malleable either. We keep asking - it's engraved in how our minds work. Season 1 suggests that Gumball could say whatever and Darwin would take it to heart as truth, no further questions asked, and live by it as if a doctrine from God. That's just... wrong. Darwin never defies Gumball, and if he acts in some way that disadvantages him, it's always framed as an accident or an act with no cruel intent (see: the ending of "The Curse" or how he eats Gumball's clothes in "The Picnic" for no reason other than being hungry). That inability of the show's characters to form a multi-layered understanding is similarly prevalent in the episodes and their plots themselves. There's no in-betweens to it all. Gumball and Darwin never perceive the white lies in "The Sock" as debatable, for instance: they just run with it. The two characters form a dichotomy in their minds of "It's either X, or it's Y," and never acknowledge a middle ground. It's like in "The Goons," how Gumball thinks that he has to push Anais out instead of consider that both can happily coexist in acting moronically, or in "The Third," where it's unheard of to have more than one good friend. That being said, since the whole universe seems to only operate by this whole "You're either with us, or against us" mentality, even a slither of variety might be too large of a favor to ask of. That's not to say you can't get something enjoyable out of it, but it also limits the show's potential in general. Regarding the show's supporting characters: even if their performances had some slight variations, they still existed to push Gumball down and knock him off of his game or, alternatively, raise him up. That doesn't sound bad, per se - I mean, that's why supporting characters are fundamentally meant to exist - but there's not a single character that just does their own thing independent of what Gumball is doing, as if the whole world would otherwise freeze if he's not in the frame. Season 1 had a weird lack of a middle ground: characters either liked him or, as in 95% of the show's cast, they eagerly awaited his failure. Penny, as an example, liked Gumball in spite of how much of a loser he came across as. And that's the only thing that can really be said about her. That's also why Season 2 was so quick to try to show their relationship more in-depth with "The Knights," showing that she still existed without Gumball and that she had opinions and preferences. (She didn't actively cheer Gumball on in fighting with Tobias, for instance - she was entirely bored of their botched displays of machismo. Compare her "I think he's awesome," in "The Party" to her "I wouldn't have to help if you weren't losing," here.) Meanwhile, Mr. Robinson has the opposite opinion but nevertheless functions the exact same, with his hatred of Gumball being the bottom-line. It's the only thing we have to know about the character, granted, but there still has to be more to prevent him from being a soulless husk. Yes, you can argue that Mrs. Robinson is literally a soulless husk herself, but that's by design: the couple's treatment in Season 1 wasn't deliberate so much as an exercise in laziness. (And, as always, you know my thoughts on Tina. Prod if you want, Guy, but it's not really at your advantage.) These characters all have voices. They just aren't carefully-crafted ones. However, I will say that Larry is, by far, the strongest of Season 1's characters, and it's because he doesn't exist as somebody strictly in Gumball's favor or against it. He's just a poor guy trying to make a living. There's actually a psychological aspect to the character - he comes across as internally pathetic while failing to project a strong enough external image to shield it in spite of his best efforts to do so. Principal Brown works decently, too, but he's a character that looks blatantly inferior compared to Season 2. He comes across as a higher-class Anais, just a stuffy figure with no tolerance for chicanery. He lacked everything else that later seasons would supplement - his vulnerability about his position or his slightly-dysfunctional relationship with Miss Simian - and came across as functioning, but not anything more than a front for expected, clichéd jokes. As for the Wattersons as a family: I can't deny that episodes like "The Refund" and "The Club" are some of the season's best offerings simply because of how strong their family dynamic is. They were characters designed to work spectacularly when aligned under one cause. The issue arises in that this is seldom the case, with the vast majority of episodes finding them butting heads, and it only shows how weak they are independent of one another. When they aren't teamed up, it just becomes something along the lines of watching adjectives fight, with no character having sufficient individual depth to really get a proper advantage. In short: Gumball's childish wonder was at the cost of character growth; Darwin's brotherly relationship was at the cost of believability; simplistic perceptions of how the show's world functioned were at the cost of variety; the suggested variety of the characters was at the cost of a spectrum of legitimately differing voices; and the strength of the family dynamic was at the cost of an inability to be equally entertaining in isolation. There's room for the stars to align and a good episode to fall through the cracks, but let's just say it's not particularly ample. Do with that what you deem appropriate; I'll be readying the confetti cannons. Do with that what you deem appropriate; I'll be readying the confetti cannons.





Guy's Counter Counter Counter: "I'm not funny so I'm just going to milk the counter joke for every ounce it's worth."

Let's not jump to conclusions just yet. There's still some things that need to be said about Season 1 before we can just close off the argument. Matt made some good points, but let's flip the coin. Perhaps, Season 1's weakness may be its strength to a certain degree. Some may find Gumball's more adamant behavior irritating, and to an extent, I agree with such an assessment. However, more often than not, Gumball's adamance compliments his optimism and makes him appealing as a character. There is something respectable about a character who keeps on plowing through life and staying true to his plans even when the odds are against him. Sure, it's an impractical way of thinking, but it’s that same impracticality found in most bright-eyed and imaginative children, the very same archetype Season 1 Gumball is trying to fill. Writing this kind of persistence is a difficult task, sure, but Season 1 was able to pull this off to a satisfactory result more often than not. To go and say Darwin isn't critical of Gumball like most younger brothers do is simply a disservice to the character. Episodes such as "The DVD", "The Debt", "The Gi", and "The Helmet" all present Darwin expressing criticism toward Gumball's more questionable behavior, even if it is only for a brief moment and he isn't as passionate about it as he is in later seasons. In "The Pressure", Darwin outright snaps at Gumball at one point, calling him out for his failures to nullify the current dilemma. Given the kind of dynamic the crew was going for between the brothers in Season 1, Darwin expressing occasional disdain but still ultimately surrendering to whatever insane plot Gumball is cooking up makes sense. Similar to the typical little brother figure in the media, Darwin is not above questioning his sibling, but at the same time, he puts enough trust in his "older brother" to get them out of whatever predicament they may find themselves in. I don't believe it is completely out of left field to have a character who, while having their doubts about a certain somebody, ultimately puts them aside out of a sort of faith. There are many different ways to structure a "older/younger brother" relationship; some relationships thrive one the younger sibling behaving as a cheeky annoying brat to his/her elder. Other relationships involve the younger sibling constantly trying to help their closed off and cynical older sibling open up. Certain relationships may even rely on the two trying to constantly outwit each other. There is no set way to write a younger sibling character, and to call Season 1 Darwin unbelievable as a younger sibling character because he does not fit one particular style is unjust. Sure, there are dynamics that are completely unbelievable, but as is, the Gumball/Darwin dynamic suffices adequately for what Season 1 was intending with the characters. (For the record, I think I have had enough younger siblings, each with his/her own personality, so I feel I am somewhat qualified to speak on the matter.) If there is one thing the later seasons are good at, it's exploring the "gray area" when it comes to certain concepts. I love episodes such as "The Wicked" and "The Advice" because they don't portray either brother's way of thinking as "wrong", showcasing the pros and cons to each way. That being said, Season 1 takes a more simplistic approach to storytelling. Sometimes, trying to express a more multi-layered way of thinking can be to an episode's disadvantage. The story may become too convoluted if executed poorly, and any attempt to say anything deep and meaningful may come across as juvenile. Season 1 knew this, and used this to its advantage. Instead of trying to incorporate some sort of deep musing about whatever topic the episode was tackling, Season 1 boiled things down to a simpler level for the sake of utilizing its resources toward telling as many jokes possible and keeping things lighthearted. True, it does come at a price, but given that a good chunk of Season 1 manages to tell some great and humorous jokes, it's a price well-spent. Yes, characters such as Penny and Mr. Robinson aren't the deepest around, but that is more than what could be said for other characters in the first season such as Banana Joe or Tobias. However, aforementioned supporting characters are in a situation similar to Darwin's: they occasionally display instances of being able to act independently from Gumball. Mr. Robinson and his role in "The Poltergeist" is a nice example of this. That episode shined a light on Gaylord's and Margaret's relationship and was a good attempt to flesh out his marriage. Likewise, Penny, to a lesser degree, received the same treatment in "The Date" and "The Meddler", both episodes bringing attention to activities Penny does when she's not around Gumball, even if her crush on Gumball is her primary and more prevalent motive at the end of the day. Tina and Ms. Simian, while are more dependent on Gumball's presence, are still entertaining enough to deliver on what Season 1 wanted to do with the characters. (And with that, I'll make no further mention to Tina.) To Season 1's credit, although the Wattersons were not the best when not working toward a common goal, they did work independently when it was in small doses. In "The Date", Anais is fairy condescending toward Gumball and what he hopes to get out of his "date". It works there, however, because the episode does not linger on Anais for too long. Likewise, "The Fight" is one of the few, and I mean few redeeming moments for Season 1 Richard because he did his shtick and he was done. Season 1 may not be able to claim that it’s as intricate as its successors, but Season 1 can bask in the fact that it used its limitations to the best of its ability. Season 1 may not be able to claim that it’s as intricate as its successors, but Season 1 can bask in the fact that it used its limitations to the best of its ability.





Matt's Final Counter: Crap Cutting

Right now, I think we have to dial it back a bit. What we're doing is projecting some deeper meaning onto these characters where there isn't any. That's not to point fingers, because I think that it was a joint effort of going wildly astray, but I want to get back to just discussing the fundamentals. I mean, it's been fun. But I'm ready to actually seize the win now. The issue with Gumball is that, while you can argue he's an appealing character regardless of his shortcomings, his sheer idiocy forms a lasting barrier to that enjoyment. It's always the same routine, rinse-and-repeat, like he (and pretty much every other character) is trapped in a stagnant character development purgatory. Likewise, we can keep on bickering about brotherly relationships, but Gumball's overarching incompetence certainly stifles the idea of Darwin's allegedly pure faith in him. And no, don't say, "Darwin can turn a blind eye because of love" or something like that - we've been psychologically breaking down these characters enough and I think both of us are unwilling to admit that their construction is just shoddy, period. No amount of trying to dig each other out of holes is going to hide that fact. I don't want to beleaguer the point anymore and tactfully evade general discussion with specifics anymore, because we're clearly not getting anywhere in the process of doing so. On the most fundamental level, the characters were built for comedy, and the comedy just isn't as strong. Everyone was a meaningless husk to project the happenings of the show onto, and the result is a very homogeneous, uneventful season. What the show did was leave enough of an impression to prompt further seasons which would allow for more experimentation - they handled the first season very delicately to appease expectations and do nothing further for the sake of preserving that future opportunity. I guess that's where you can single me out as admitting that Season 1 was a "necessary step for the series," but I say that in the worst way possible. What I will concede to is that the show was wise to embrace utter simplicity with how it conducted itself that early on. Even if it was bred out of necessity by virtue of the show's then-slapdash nature, it generally tried not to let that disadvantage it from being entertaining (to some capacity). Even so, it used simplicity as a safety net, preventing the show from really trying anything exciting, and the result is, again, disappointingly generic storytelling. Just... on face-value. Even with all the flourishes in the world, Season 1 was never able to look beyond how it set itself up and do anything game-changing. That's not to say a show has to be game-changing, but the show never even tried to step outside of its comfort zone. From the perspective of ensuring the series would get renewed, it's arguably the best move, but it never proved any legitimate worth as anything more than aimless fodder for the kids. We can argue about this all day, but in your heart of hearts, is this a fight worth fighting for? We've cycled through every trick in the book, but Season 1's just Season 1, and it's sub-par, watered-down entertainment. I could launch some sort of retaliation against every previous assertion, but there's power in being brief, so I'm stripping every possible excess that could possibly encourage some raging counterpoint that leads us back into oblivion. This has been an exhausting argument, and if I have nothing more to add that will get us any closer to the finish line, then so it shall be. I could launch some sort of retaliation against every previous assertion, but there's power in being brief, so I'm stripping every possible excess that could possibly encourage some raging counterpoint that leads us back into oblivion. This has been an exhausting argument, and if I have nothing more to add that will get us any closer to the finish line, then so it shall be.





Guy's Last Counter: Finally

Putting the the intense analysis aside, Gumball's and Darwin's dynamic gets the job done sufficiently. Sure, there is some room for nuance, but there is something to admire in sheer simplicity. "Simple" does not equate to "shoddy." Think of their dynamic in Season 1 as vanilla ice cream if you will. Sure, the ice cream could be better if one were to add different flavors and toppings to the mix, but the vanilla ice cream itself is still enjoyable. Gumball is the naive and childish leader, and Darwin is the innocent little brother who puts his older brother on a pedestal. For what Season 1 was aiming for, that is all it needs to be. The writing is not perfect, but it's good as is. Season 1 of The Amazing World of Gumball wasn't trying to be the surreal black comedy fantastical sitcom it is today. Season 1 was trying to be a simplistic show about a child traversing through his imaginative world. A safe way out, sure, but as you said yourself, a show doesn't have to be game-changing to be good.

Also, for the record, Season 1 did take the time to step out of its comfort zone if the existence of episodes such as "The Helmet","The Dress", and "The Gi" are any indication. Not as frequent nor as drastic as more recent outings, but still respectable. Season 1 did not try to be as amazing as its contemporaries, but that does not mean it is "aimless foddler for kids". The season set out to be a show about simplicity, and it succeeded if ratings are anything to go by. There is something to appreciate about the show's first season; one just needs to approach it differently than they would the other seasons. Season 1 did not try to be as amazing as its contemporaries, but that does not mean it is "aimless foddler for kids". The season set out to be a show about simplicity, and it succeeded if ratings are anything to go by. There is something to appreciate about the show's first season; one just needs to approach it differently than they would the other seasons.





Closing Stuff

Well, that should end that session of overanalyzing. Anyways, I suggest you take a look at the work of my partner because he is such a talented writer.

You should also take a look at our previous collaboration in which we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of "The Hero".

There's also my stuff if you're curious.

That's it for now. Take care.

....

Season 1 is overhated.

Bye.