You all realize that this is a joke thread, right?

Lucretius wrote:You all realize that this is a joke thread, right?

No, I think Faulkner is being sincere here

J_Faulkner wrote:Over the last decade, the Pokemon anime series has undergone a deluge of criticism from both anime fans and non-anime viewers alike. Critics often attempt to tear it to shreds on the basis that it is too imature and lacks any depth. How it is nothing but a marketing exercise designed to steal money from the younger generation. How it gives anime a bad name. How it encourages materialism and wastes the time of school-children.

This is a myth.

?

Honestly, my experience with Pokemon 10 years ago was simply that I though Pikachu was possibly the cutest little thing I had ever seen, but all of the other 12/13 year old boys who had just hit puberty were under the assumption that Misty's outfit was "sexy", and that scared me away from the series. I did not want to be associated with a fan base of adolescent males sex-punning a 13ish-year-old cartoon girl. (Although nowadays I find myself visiting this EvaGeeks site from time to time. Strange, huh?) Digimon had a smaller fan base, so I was less likely to come across pervs to be associated with, so I thought it was a much better choice. (Yes. I thought this way at the age of twelve.)

At best, Pokemon could have been good, happy fun for me to watch if I had only given it a chance. But then a bunch of other anime stuff that seemed to have the same marketing strategy as Pokemon was suddenly vomited onto the States ("I play my ______ card that does ______!!!!!")... and I was disgusted with anything Japanese until somebody showed me Akira when I was 18.

So, yeah. I happily skipped over that part of anime history. It wasn't something that should be shunned, but not something that should really have any devotees over the age of 10, either.

You could do an analysis like that with ANY children's show. I could do it to Phineas and Ferb if I wanted to. It doesn't mean there's really depth there.

Legendary wrote:Phineas and Ferb

DUDE!!! I love that show! It reminded me of myself at that age. (Or, at least all of the stuff I WANTED to do at that age.)

I know!!! And it's a great example of...

*spins bullshit analysis wheel*

Sisyphean struggles in modern day life!

Xard wrote:

Lucretius wrote:You all realize that this is a joke thread, right?

No, I think Faulkner is being sincere here

It's pretty much impossible to tell. I think JF gets a lot of lulz out of trolling message boards. He once said in his own article about Jungian analysis of NGE that he no longer thought much of either and yet now he's on here claiming we should go on a mission to promote NGE across the interweb. Who the hell knows what he really thinks. I wished I remembered enough about the programming from my childhood to squash his "analysis".

=================================================

J_Faulkner wrote:Yes, but the nature of a Western cartoon is that you don't get continuity across episodes to the same degree as something like Pokemon. You cite Rabbit letting a young bird go, but from the way you described it, this occurs in one episode.

I'm pretty sure there was an episode to where Kessie came back. Granted, anime is usually less episodic than western animation but neither format (continuity VS episodic) really matters when it comes to depth.

J_Faulkner wrote:that's a gap of 18 episodes! This just crushes the Rabbit scene, where the bird isn't even shown to go through two transitional stages in its life history, and hence the bird develops a far weaker emotional bond with Rabbit and with the viewer.

I cried during the Rabbit/Kessie episode, I did not shed a tear during a single Pokemon episode. The length between the introduction and release doesn't really mean it's used to develop any emotional attachment between the audience and that relationship. For all I know those other 18 episodes didn't have anything to do with Butterfree. Plus, this argument implies that any film that has such an attachment as its theme would be inferior/weaker because it's not as long as that 18-episode stretch of Pokemon and yet I doubt very seriously that Pokemon ep. has the emotional pathos of Umberto D or even the recent Wendy and Lucy.

J_Faulkner wrote:a) You haven't justified how Winnie the Pooh is as mature and deep as, or more so, than Pokemon.

b) You haven't justified that the series was founded on marketing.

a) I could take practically any individual episode and do precisely what you did with Pokemon if I had enough inclination to do so.

b) How about the billions of spin-offs it's produced? Do you think that's been done out of artistic interest or out of financial interests?

J_Faulkner wrote:So?

It's quite common in Japan to use a different medium to promote/sell the same work in another. The NGE manga was begun to generate interest in the anime, for instance. It just makes sense that the Pokemon anime would've been used to promote the Pokemon franchise as a whole.

J_Faulkner wrote:a) Kids don't have an innate sensibility to collecting everything.

b) All anime have some marketing aspects, including Evangelion (e.g. design of female pilots).

a) Kids tend to have an innate sensibility for getting into things which appeal to them and then wanting everything (or most everything) of that something.

b) Some anime uses more and is more about marketing than others. Anno didn't have any control over NGE's marketing or it probably wouldn't be a fraction of what it was. I'm not sure about Pokemon's creator but my guess is that he hasn't expressed disgust at all of the Pokemon merchandising, spin-offs, etc.

J_Faulkner wrote:Ash catches no more than about 10 Pokemon in the entire first series out of a possible 150 or so Pokemon, and furthermore, lets one of his beloved Pokemon free to pursue individual happiness. This makes a complete mockery of the catchphrase and teaches kids to be moderate in their ambitions, and to respect having relatively few deep bonds in contrast to many superficial ones. In fact, one can say the catchphrase "Gotta catch them all" is a brilliant trolling tactic by Tajiri to lure in gullible kids, only to crush their materialistic ambitions afterwards.

If this was indeed intentional then there are probably many more aspects of the series which promote this theme; please point them out. There's no need for Ash to "catch'em all!" (or even catch many) for it to be an effective marketing tool for potential buyers to want to. Plus, most of the other Pokemons get shown off in other ways in the shows (such as being owned by other trainers) so fans are still getting to see them which is the important thing. As for the "deep bonds over a few superficial ones" it's just as likely that a few select Pokemon were really popular and that's what they decided to focus on instead of splitting the affections of their fans up into a lot of them.

J_Faulkner wrote:Ash was not just making lemonade, he was dicing with death. He put his life on the line for a Pokemon that would not have been his first choice, and trusted in whatever fate had in store for him in the pivotal act of sacrifice.

So "dicing with death" is an uncommon thing in children's animation which has elements of action and drama? Then you go onto to describe a "it's good to sacrifice yourself for others" moral, another staple of children's stories.

J_Faulkner wrote:I highlighted the unique way in which sacrifice was portrayed in the first episode, through a man-beast relationship that has subtle links to the unsustainbility of ecosystems. I highlighted how the dubious nature of greed and materialism was manifestedly profoundly through a narrative that involves faith, courage in the face of a real possbility of death, existential dread and the emergence of a Saviour. I showed how psychological immaturity was portrayed through the unique man-beast relationship. I expounded upon how the main character's affinity for bug-type Pokemon seems to be driven by the creator Satoshi Tajiri, and how this could later lead to a (possibly unconscious) playing out of Tajiri's wishes in anime form.

This is just tiring. Whether you're trolling or not I'm not going to try and reach back in my memory and list every single example of children's programming that has these exact same "themes" as part of a basic archetype of storytelling. But let's see:

-Relationships between man and beasts
-Themes about nature
-The badness of greed
-faith & courage
-facing death/peril and being anxious about it
-taking an interest and turning it into art

Yeah, these sure are uncommon things in children's fiction...

J_Faulkner wrote:I cannot for the life of me understand why people such as Eva Yojimbo still dare to question the depth and maturity of the first series of Pokemon, when it clearly smashes most if not all other children's cartoons, and probably a lot of so-called "adult" series too.

You understand it perfectly. The more I read in this thread the more obvious it becomes how much of a troll you're playing. Some series are clearly created with the intention of provoking thought about the themes and ideas that were the impetus for their creation, others are clearly there for their entertainment value that and the money generated from their marketing and promotion. The question is does it really do anything interesting with these things. With Pokemon I think the clear answer is "no". Just because you can point to some basic themes that are indeed present in a wealth of other children's animation (Winnie the Pooh was just the first that popped into my head; I'm sure there are thousands of others that I'm not thinking about or don't remember well enough to expound on) doesn't mean these things were in any way intentionally designed (consciously or unconsciously) as anything beyond a bi-product of the superficial entertainment value.

Digimon was a series very similar to Pokemon in concept and was actually much, much darker than Pokemon and actually had similar relationships, character deaths and apocalyptic themes. This would've been more believable if you had done all this with regard to Digimon.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:Digimon was a series very similar to Pokemon in concept and was actually much, much darker than Pokemon and actually had similar relationships, character deaths and apocalyptic themes. This would've been more believable if you had done all this with regard to Digimon.

The third series/season, Tamers, had a lot of Evangelion influences. The second half of Tamers became incredibly dark. Even when compared to moments from the first season/series.

I think I watched the first 4 seasons IIRC. But I definitely remember the death of one of the Digimon coming as a shock. I remember thinking as a kid "wait, this isn't supposed to happen! Main characters don't DIE in animation!"

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:So, yeah. I happily skipped over that part of anime history. It wasn't something that should be shunned, but not something that should really have any devotees over the age of 10, either.

Sure, but people over the age of 10 should be able to see its under-rated maturity and depth, provided they are not blinded by the baseless vitriol of haters.

Legendary wrote:You could do an analysis like that with ANY children's show.

Prove this statement. Go ahead and do as in-depth an analysis as I have done on Tiny Toon Adventures, and not only that, show that the analysis provides evidence that it touches on serious themes to the same depth and maturity as the 1st series of Pokemon.

Otherwise, your claim is groundless, and only serves to perpetuate the empty rhetoric of haters and the myth that the first series of Pokemon is shallow.

Legendary wrote:I could do it to Phineas and Ferb if I wanted to. It doesn't mean there's really depth there.

Go on then. Show how this Phineas and Ferb touches on Darwinian evolution to the same extent as Pokemon. Show how it launches a scathing attack on arranged marriages. Show how the characters' pasts point to a fundamentally spiritual/non-materalistic message. Show how it could symbolize the unfulfilled wishes of the creator to pursue an intellectual scientific career. Show how it deals with death and show how it warns against the dangers of the unsustainability of the Earth's ecosystems. Show how it clearly highlights the dangers of being schizophrenic.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:I think JF gets a lot of lulz out of trolling message boards.

Out with the troll accusations when the going gets tough during an argument, eh?

Eva Yojimbo wrote:He once said in his own article about Jungian analysis of NGE that he no longer thought much of either and yet now he's on here claiming we should go on a mission to promote NGE across the interweb.

People's thoughts can fluctuate, you know.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:Who the hell knows what he really thinks.

I make very deep posts that tend to incorporate a wealth of meaning, so it's not really surprising that people sometimes struggle to comprehend them.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:I wished I remembered enough about the programming from my childhood to squash his "analysis".

I think if you did remember, you'd actually see that my analysis makes an entirely valid point about the under-rated maturity and depth of the 1st series of Pokemon.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:Granted, anime is usually less episodic than western animation but neither format (continuity VS episodic) really matters when it comes to depth.

It certainly does matter, because continuity gives the chance for episodes to develop a character over many episodes. This could easily provide a richer historical backdrop to a character's psyche, such that when a character encounters a defining moment, the viewer could potentially feel more empathy. Case in point: Ash and Butterfree.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:I cried during the Rabbit/Kessie episode, I did not shed a tear during a single Pokemon episode.

Maybe you failed to appreciate the under-rated depth and maturity of Pokemon?

Eva Yojimbo wrote:For all I know those other 18 episodes didn't have anything to do with Butterfree.

Well, that's the value of actually watching and remembering the episodes, isn't it? Right now, all you can do is stab at my arguments in the dark because you don't seem to appreciate their factual basis, derived from the details of the show. There was a whole episode dedicated to how Caterpie pupated, and as I mentioned already, Butterfree was pivotal as to why Ash and co. was stuck behind on a capsized ship, the St. Anne. Ash was going to trade his Butterfree for a Rattata, but due to poignant flashbacks of Butterfree, he decided to undo the trade at the last minute, which contributed to the fact that they missed the life-boats for escaping the ship during a Team Rocket heist gone wrong. The flashback sequence illustrates how essential it was to have episodes in between Ash acquiring Caterpie and Butterfree being set free. Furthermore, there are other episodes in between where Butterfree is used in important battles against the Pokemon of other gym leaders. One could also see that Ash's break with Butterfree is inverted when we see the relationship between Richie and his Butterfree, Happy, during the Indigo League - this sets up an extraordinarily subtle subtext, given that Richie was the person who knocked out Ash.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:Plus, this argument implies that any film that has such an attachment as its theme would be inferior/weaker because it's not as long as that 18-episode stretch of Pokemon

It's not just the fact there is an 18-episode gap, but the clever way in which the creators used this time to build up the relationship between Ash and Butterfree, culminating in the heart-twisting scene in episode 21 where Ash fought back tears of undistilled pain and haunting flashbacks to let Butterfree go.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:and yet I doubt very seriously that Pokemon ep. has the emotional pathos of Umberto D or even the recent Wendy and Lucy.

You can doubt, but you really need to address my arguments; otherwise, you can clearly see how I have shown in exquisite detail that the first series of Pokemon is very under-rated in terms of maturity and depth.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:a) I could take practically any individual episode and do precisely what you did with Pokemon if I had enough inclination to do so.

Go ahead, and then see whether your analysis shows that Winnie the Pooh shows the rich variety of themes Pokemon does, and not only that, to the save level of maturity and depth. Until then, as evidenced by the way the Butterfree story crushes the Rabbit story, Pokemon appears to be far more complex.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:b) How about the billions of spin-offs it's produced? Do you think that's been done out of artistic interest or out of financial interests?

I'm not saying that all the merchandise was created out of a love of artistic value, but that the first series of Pokemon has under-rated maturity and depth which strongly argues against it being merely a platform to promote the aim of profit-making.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:It just makes sense that the Pokemon anime would've been used to promote the Pokemon franchise as a whole.

Sure, no doubt it would boost sales of the game, but as I've argued with very strong arguments, this is by no means the only or primary aim of the first series. As I mentioned, the later series show a marked decay in depth (e.g. no comparable episode to episode 1 at all in series 2, not even close), and that is why I think commercial considerations have a much stronger bearing only after series 1.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:a) Kids tend to have an innate sensibility for getting into things which appeal to them and then wanting everything (or most everything) of that something.

But quite clearly from my analysis, the 1st Pokemon series has powerful spiritual undertones which mitigate against this innate sensibility from developing into a cancer.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:b) Anno didn't have any control over NGE's marketing or it probably wouldn't be a fraction of what it was. I'm not sure about Pokemon's creator but my guess is that he hasn't expressed disgust at all of the Pokemon merchandising, spin-offs, etc.

I'm not sure - maybe Tajiri is disgusted. But the fact that the 1st series has such a strong spiritual undertone argues against it being a mere platform to sell more merchandise.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:If this was indeed intentional then there are probably many more aspects of the series which promote this theme; please point them out.

Already have in my previous posts, but I'll also add this: James of Team Rocket had a very spoilt childhood from rich parents, but was shown to find happiness in relative poverty as an adult - in fact, the relevant episode shows how James rejects spending more time with his parents to pursue his career with Jessie. Also, the failure of Ash to win the Indigo League is an electrifying conclusion which supports the philosophy that winning isn't everything - as I've mentioned many times already. Furthermore, Pokemon Fashion Flash has Ash and co. openly disapproving of the construction of Pokemon fashion parlours that tart up Pokemon, and instead shows them helping out in a massage parlour of some sort that focuses on spiritual development. Tentacruel and Tentacool has the protagonists fighting against a rich property developer that is threatening the stability of the surrounding marine ecosystem, and Misty explicitly stated her affection for Water Pokemon even though some are not aesthetically pleasing. Ash and co. were seen to help out Otoshi find his lost badges even though this took valuable training time before the Indigo League (and probably contributed to his loss) - clearly showing how it's important to think of others over and above your personal ambitions. Ash reacts with fury at how a trainer seems to be abusing his Pokemon and even goes as far as to fight him - clearly showing the importance of establishing strong and mutually agreeable relationships with the natural environment, as well as warning against an authoritarian character that craves power. Richie was seen to proactively prevent the referee giving him a win by default in the Indigo League just because Ash was late (due to being held up by Team Rocket), showing the viewer that principles come before materialistic gains.

The list goes on. I mean, the spiritual undertones in the first series were pretty obvious, so I'm not sure why you question it.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:Plus, most of the other Pokemons get shown off in other ways in the shows (such as being owned by other trainers) so fans are still getting to see them which is the important thing.

You seem to be falling into the misconception that Ash treats his Pokemon as mere objects to collect. Nothing can be further from the truth. He nurtures his Pokemon and establishes relationships that promote mutual respect. This is clearly seen with Pikachu - e.g. Ash willing to sacrifice himself in the first episode, when he tried to leave Pikachu with a wild population because he thought it was more natural, Pikachu jumping in and fighting for Ash spontaneously in the gym battle against Sabrina, even though it was not scheduled to and was maimed in an earlier confrontation with Sabrina's Kadabra, and Ash not forcing Pikachu to evolve to a Raichu, instead respecting its decision. It's fact that in Pokemon, "good" trainers are those that do not coerce their Pokemon to do anything whereas "bad" trainers are those that do and are portrayed in a negative light - e.g. Team Rocket and Ditto.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:As for the "deep bonds over a few superficial ones" it's just as likely that a few select Pokemon were really popular and that's what they decided to focus on instead of splitting the affections of their fans up into a lot of them.

Pikachu is not even one of the first Pokemon you can choose in the original games (blue/red). Several of Ash's Pokemon are not particularly charismatic: e.g. Primeape is pugnacious and looks like a deformed ball of fluff, Caterpie and Metapod are creepy insects (and are probaby chosen due to the insect bias of Tajiri) and Muk is a purple pile of shit. This is not to mention the rather drab Pokemon of Brock and Misty, such as a piece of rock with arms and a starfish. So certainly, you can see that the types of Pokemon chosen were not included just for the sake of merchandising.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:So "dicing with death" is an uncommon thing in children's animation which has elements of action and drama?

Dicing with death in a serious situation is not really that common among slapstick Western cartoons such as Animaniacs and Tiny Toon Adventures.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:Then you go onto to describe a "it's good to sacrifice yourself for others" moral, another staple of children's stories.

It's the way it's done in the first episode of Pokemon that sets it apart. The situation was very believable in the context of the imaginary story, the atmosphere was sombre, with a very graphic portrayal of a mauled Pikachu in close-up, the characters were genuinely distressed (e.g. Ash's reaction to the mauled Pikachu) and the music was suitably chilling. Also, I'm not sure that sacrificing oneself for an animal which you've just met is a common theme in other children's stories - can you give examples?

Eva Yojimbo wrote:Whether you're trolling or not I'm not going to try and reach back in my memory and list every single example of children's programming that has these exact same "themes" as part of a basic archetype of storytelling.

Then accept that my detailed arguments stand and are legitimate, and recognise the under-rated maturity and depth of the first series of Pokemon.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:You understand it perfectly

I do?

Eva Yojimbo wrote:The more I read in this thread the more obvious it becomes how much of a troll you're playing.

Ad hom.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:The question is does it really do anything interesting with these things.

With the first series of Pokemon, clearly "yes" - see my detailed arguments.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:With Pokemon I think the clear answer is "no".

I've seen no convincing arguments from you on this point.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:Just because you can point to some basic themes that are indeed present in a wealth of other children's animation (Winnie the Pooh was just the first that popped into my head; I'm sure there are thousands of others that I'm not thinking about or don't remember well enough to expound on) doesn't mean these things were in any way intentionally designed (consciously or unconsciously) as anything beyond a bi-product of the superficial entertainment value.

a) The themes are not basic, as I have explained.

b) It's a common misconception by Pokemon critics that the first series has themes which are just omnipresent in children's entertainment, but I've yet to see these critics give the same type of detailed analysis I have done for Pokemon for other children's programmes, and successfully show that they too show the same depth and maturity. Until you do that, you will fall under the umbrella of these people, and my arguments will stand.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:Digimon was a series very similar to Pokemon in concept and was actually much, much darker than Pokemon and actually had similar relationships, character deaths and apocalyptic themes.

Ash Ketchum is much more developed psychologically than Tai in the first series of Digimon - e.g. Ash is seen to struggle with fear and doubt, and was shown to cry and fight back tears to the tune of poignant flashbacks. Also, since you say Digimon is similar to Pokemon, then show how Digimon incorporates the many ideas I've detailed for Pokemon, such as arranged marriages. Until you do that, associating Pokemon with Digimon is a fallacious line of reasoning.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:But I definitely remember the death of one of the Digimon coming as a shock. I remember thinking as a kid "wait, this isn't supposed to happen! Main characters don't DIE in animation!"

That was Wizardmon, and I agree that was very shocking. Still, that doesn't exactly negate all the mature and deep ideas I've meticulously described for Pokemon.

J_Faulkner wrote:Then accept that my detailed arguments stand and are legitimate, and recognise the under-rated maturity and depth of the first series of Pokemon.

Sure thing. I really wish I gave enough of a crap about Pokemon or could remember any number of childhood shows in enough detail to provide a similar analysis, but I don't and I don't. Good luck convincing everyone of the maturity and depth of Pokemon's first series. I'm sure if you submit a fully detailed analysis to whatever academic department or spread it around to whatever anime/Pokemon boards you'll open a ton of eyes and convince everyone.

Eva Yojimbo wrote:Sure thing. I really wish I gave enough of a crap about Pokemon or could remember any number of childhood shows in enough detail to provide a similar analysis, but I don't and I don't. Good luck convincing everyone of the maturity and depth of Pokemon's first series. I'm sure if you submit a fully detailed analysis to whatever academic department or spread it around to whatever anime/Pokemon boards you'll open a ton of eyes and convince everyone.

Great! We both know that the person with the most logical and factually-based arguments often prevail in the end, and I must applaud you for your intellectual honesty in admitting defeat.

Pokemon has hidden maturity and depth, and that is the bottom line. The critics have wilted under the extreme force of my arguments.

A detailed academic analysis is certainly a possibility and could be a fruitful area for future research.

Don't get me wrong, I still think you're full of shit. I just don't feel like wasting my time in proving it.

Eva Yojimbo wrote: Don't get me wrong, I still think you're full of shit.

What's so funny? Isn't it a completely irrational line of thought to think someone is full of shit when that person has just flattened you in a debate with logic and factually-correct arguments?

Eva Yojimbo wrote:I just don't feel like wasting my time in proving it.

Or equally, you can't argue against my positions, and just want to cover this up using an excuse.

J_Faulkner wrote:What's so funny?

You're funny. Funny like a clown. You amuse me.

J_Faulkner wrote:Isn't it a completely irrational line of thought to think someone is full of shit when that person has just flattened you in a debate with logic and factually-correct arguments?

It's perfectly rational when the only way counter those arguments would take much more time and effort than you're willing to invest and you know that those making them are just exercising their abilities in sophistry and are going to utterly fail to convince anyone else.

J_Faulkner wrote:Or equally, you can't argue against my positions, and just want to cover this up using an excuse.

Oh no, I'm quite sure I could. As I read every point you made I thought of perfect equivalents in Winnie the Pooh. You mentioned Pokemon's anti-materialism and there was actually an episode very much devoted to that theme when Tigger fell down a wishing well and went into a world where he could wish for whatever he wanted to his Birthday but in the end it didn't bring him happiness and all he wanted was to go back with his friends. Why, one could read all kinds of depths into that.

@ Faulkner: Dude if you over analyze pokemon this much, how can you possibly stand your own existence?

J_Faulkner wrote:Go on then. Show how this Phineas and Ferb touchs on Darwinian evolution to the same extent as Pokemon.

Phineas and Ferb is not about Darwinian evolution. Neither is Pokemon. Pokemon evolution is not at all related to Darwinian evolution.

Show how it launches a scathing attack on arranged marriages.

The primary characters of Phineas and Ferb do not live in a society of arranged marriages. It has, however, focused highlighted other marriage issues, such as divorce, remarriage, and mixed ethnicity in families, and shows how all three should be handled in relation to children. This is subtle, though, it does not devote episodes to it, but rather has a few moments in each episode about this.

Show how the characters' pasts point to a fundamentally spiritual/non-materalistic message.

Their pasts do not. Some of their actions, however, do, such as in P+F's Christmas Special, in which Phineas is not interested in gaining presents, but in being able to spread the joy that Santa Claus does, not only to the normal inhabitants of Earth but to Santa Claus himself, who has a rather thankless job. It should also be noted that many of the duos plans involve actions that would gain them lots of money, but they do not ever keep said money.

Show how it could symbolize the unfulfilled wishes of the creator to pursue an intellectual scientific career.

The show is ultimately about two stepbrothers building marvelous machines.

Show how it deals with death and show how it warns against the dangers of the unsustainability of the Earth's ecosystems.

It does neither, but environmental plots have occasionally come up. It does handle issues that more children are likely to come up against, however.

Show how it clearly highlights the dangers of being schizophrenic.

Candace's obsession with proving that P+F really do build strange machines every day to her parents is driving her into insanity. Her actions have typically either ruined her own day, her friend's days, or created more serious consequences.

I make very deep posts that tend to incorporate a wealth of meaning

Pride comes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Maybe you failed to appreciate the under-rated depth and maturity of Pokemon?

Maybe your point is wrong.

the 1st Pokemon series has powerful spiritual undertones

It does not, it is a typical shonen series with a heavy emphasis on the power of friendship.

James of Team Rocket had a very spoilt childhood from rich parents, but was shown to find happiness in relative poverty as an adult

He is a petty criminal, and an incompetent as well. Your other points all line up nicely with perfectly secular values, not spirituality.

Ad hom.

Fun fact of the day: Ad hominem statements are not always fallacious.

Ash Ketchum is much more developed psychologically than Tai in the first series of Digimon - e.g. Ash is seen to struggle with fear and doubt, and was shown to cry and fight back tears to the tune of poignant flashbacks. Also, since you say Digimon is similar to Pokemon, then show how Digimon incorporates the many ideas I've detailed for Pokemon, such as arranged marriages. Until you do that, associating Pokemon with Digimon is a fallacious line of reasoning.

Uh... what? Where Satoshi lacks confidence and gains it, Taichi has the exact opposite development; he begins with too much confidence and learns to tune it down. Yamato struggles with his inability to protect his younger brother and his parents' divorce, Mimi becomes less of a spoiled brat and also struggles with the reality of death, Takeru learns Satoshi's lesson, Jyou does as well, Koushiro puts away his laptop to properly interact with other human beings, and Sora realizes that her mother is really looking out for her, not trying to smash her down. That's seven characters in 54 episodes, which lines up with Satoshi's time in Kanto, I believe.

This thread sucks.

*sigh*