>>149780103
I think it's just the ongoing crushing effect of the "minimum viable product" mentality plaguing the entertainment industry, but especially animation.
The people in charge of funding these shows think there is no point in making an animated series that has significantly better animation than other shows, or even the show its rebooting. They don't think the market cares about quality, so why should they bother? I've talked to people who think that King of the Hill always had "bad animation" and that the new show is "no different". I don't blame them since they probably don't have such an interest in animation as I do, and don't recognise what the original show did right or why the new one feels so off.
The absolute cheapness of these shows is just so evident in every aspect of them. The voice acting is bad because nobody cares and they don't want to pay for multiple reads, the sound effect mixing is terrible and borderline non-existent (seriously, watch a modern "adult" animation series and see how often there are weird, stale pauses between characters speaking or missing ambient sound effects leading to dead air), the writing is weak and lacking, and of course the animation is rigged and tweened on the lowest budget they can afford while still being recognisable as the shows they are meant to be.
I think people subconsciously reject these shows because of the outstanding lack of quality, but don't have the understanding of what its getting wrong so find themselves unable to properly articulate why they didn't like it other than a general sense of it "being bad".
"Why even bother?" is the prevailing sentimentality behind these shows, and the King of the Hill reboot is no different.
