The movie made 15 million at the box office, and isn't even up on piracy sites because no one bothered filming it on cam. It doesn't fucking matter if it is at this point, no one will ever know.

>>26531 Reviews seem to range from 70s to high 80s, so it can't be that bad. >>26535 >box office According to the place I just read, it made 24 million, but had a budget that was likely somewhere between 25 million up to 60-70 million. That has to hurt if the latter numbers are true. God damn.

>>26531 >>26535 >>26657 It's incredibly boring

>>26531 >>26659 Bob's Burgers can't carry a movie. Hell the series is pretty okay most of the time. It's not super funny & doesn't have the same actual realistic slice of life feel King of the Hill has. It's still entertaining & has moments of genuinely good animation but the problem is there's a hook missing. Sure it's much more realistic than most other "adult" animated comedies but it still has the problem of going on forever with none of the characters aging or changing permanently. At most Tina's had one birthday & Bob had like 2. Yet each season goes through halloween, thanksgiving, & christmas. So there's clearly a passage of time occurring yet no one ages. It's annoying but works more in something like Family Guy or The Simpsons because it's all absurd comedy. Bob's Burgers though is a lot more grounded. If it was actually consistent with the more grounded tone then they could actually tell real stories as the kids grew. Thus have material for a movie. As it is, I hear the movie is essentially just 3 long episodes put together & nothing special.

>>26667 I don't want wacky shit, the whole thing is simply incredibly formulaic with mediocre writing. It's the most bland shit I have ever seen in my life and it shies away from being actually emotional which would hit well since it's pretty grounded as far as animated series go. It's simply something incredibly boring you can watch with your kids, I don't think there's even any adult humor, it's even less edgy than Zombie Simpsons.

>>26669 I never said it should have wacky shit. I'm saying it can't get away with the forever young status quo shit BECAUSE it's NOT a wacky shit adult comedy but a grounded adult comedy.

>>26667 I thought the first season or two of Bob's Burgers were actually funny, but before too long it seemed like it wasn't even trying to be funny anymore. Someone pointed out to me what it was really trying to be was "cute." Or in words they didn't know how to articulate, it was doing what would soon be recognized as current year tumblr style shit. I never watched far enough to see if it gets political, but even without that, it still very much has that style of feminine post-hipster proto-sjw writing, to appeal to that crowd. It's not funny, but I know the small group of loud "people" who would like it. >>26671 Your complaint is dumb. The real problem is just that the show isn't good. King of the Hill isn't good because it doesn't have too many christmases, it's good because it's well written and funny. Much better animation and design also helps.

>>26673 King of the Hill is so well written because the characters actually grow & change. Almost like a slice of life show is best when it's actually LIKE LIFE! Instead of eternally 10 year old kids running around for 12 seasons. That's why Bob's Burgers can never be more than okay. Because it stays static.

>>26659 as there been something that is "credibly boring"?

>>26674 >the characters actually grow & change Only superficially. Peggy gets different jobs but none of them matter any more than on any other sitcom. The closest thing to a big change is Joseph going through puberty, but again, that's hardly even growth, and more just turning him into a new character. It's not like continuity or even past character interactions actually get brought up much or matter to a significant degree. You might as well say The Simpsons was good in the era where they killed off Maude and made Barney quit drinking, because characters were "growing and changing." (Granted, compared to what came later, that era is great in comparison. But compared to what came before, it's awful.)

>>26686 Are you forgetting Luanne finding love again & becoming a mother?

>>26674 >the characters actually grow & change Very rarely, the meat of King of the Hill is good writing, grounded adult themes and characters that act like actual human beings, if satirized/caricatured. Bobs Burgers has none of that

>>26676 Cleveland Show

>>26698 Bob's Burgers can still be entertaining but yes it lacks actual substance even if it tries to have it.

>>26699 oh, that makes sense

>>26676 12 Oz Mouse

>>26676 The Brak show

>>26712 Enjoyed it greatly. >>26699 It was ok. >>26756 It was ok.

>>26756 Brak Show was great

>>26693 Again, that's nothing significantly different than what would happen on any other sitcom. A lot of shows add new characters in later seasons under exactly that pretext. It's not like her personality or role in the show actually changes. And that's fine. It's a great show. But liking it because of that is dumb since every dumb sitcom does that.

>>26900 It's significant because it's unlike animated sitcoms that go on forever with no change.

>>26905 You're too young to be on this site, Jimmy Jr., and we all know she's too good for the likes of you.

>>26907 You mean like how The Simpsons killed Maude? Or how The Flintstones had a baby? And their neighbours then also got a baby? And they both got pets? And then Gazoo showed up?

>>26998 Not the same. When King of the Hill killed off characters, it actually meant something & characters actually grew. You don't get that in The Simpsons or Family Guy. Unironically The Flintstones was a better sitcom since characters actually grew up. Albeit through massive time skips.

>>26999 >implying Maude dying didn't change Flanders >implying Milhouse's parents getting divorced didn't change those characters >implying Barney quitting drinking didn't change that character >implying Skinner and Krabappel's relationship didn't change them >implying The Flintstones didn't change significantly when Pebbles was born, or when the Rubbles got Bam Bam, or when Gazoo showed up (none of these things being time skips) You don't know anything about the shows you're talking about.

>>27023 None of those changes matter because none of the characters actually change. It's surface level change.

>>27024 I have nothing to contribute to this conversation but I'm replying anyway to boost this boards ranking.

>>27024 It's just as surface level as Luanne, who continues acting like the same retard as before, only now with a baby. The bigger change is Lucky becoming a recurring character, but again, Pebbles and Bam Bam were new recurring characters too, as were a whole ton of shitty Simpsons characters.

>>27028 Seems accurate. Having a child rarely induces intelligence in an individual. By and large a person with Nancy Pelosi is the same person they were before the kid.

>>26531 >Was it any good? Watched a cam of it last night. Pros: >animation got an upgrade >reasonably funny >Gene was normal amounts of faggy instead of super-faggy like I'd feared >The Fischoeders are in a lot of it >A new Fischoeder was introduced (gee, I wonder who the super-secret bad guy is?) >Teddy got to be a hero >3D clamchase scene >musical numbers kept to a minimum Cons: >it could have just been a two-part television episode >Gene was faggy >Teddy's usual neediness was baseline-stalker >Louise, after being the brains and bravery of the kid trio for a decade, suddenly loses her mojo for the entire movie due to a playground taunt Basically, it suffers from the same thing that happened to The Simpsons Movie. It could have been more daring, with stronger language and situation, but, instead, it was just a more expensive episode. It definitely wasn't something on which someone should spend money. But it was okay. Like a 2 out of 5. It's had some moments where I actually chuckled.

>>26667 I guess they just wanted the show to last 1 season but surprise surprise, hosed up along with the Simpsons and Family Guy just to fill that dead air.

>>26667 >It's annoying but works more in something like Family Guy or The Simpsons because it's all absurd comedy. Bob's Burgers though is a lot more grounded In Season 1 of The Simpsons Homer attempted suicide. It was treated very seriously. The show was originally quite grounded. And as you mentioned, King of the Hill is quite grounded, but barely any time passes. That's not the problem. Not being funny or interesting is.

One of the stupidest things about Bob's Burgers I ever saw was an interview with H. Jon Benjamin where the interviewer asked him if he thought Gene was gay. Jon just smiled and said "I hope so." Fucking what? Why would anyone (other than the usual sociopaths of twitter/tumblr/etc) HOPE for that? 1. Gene's had at least one girlfriend 2. Gene will be lucky if he isn't eventually put in a home for retarded adults by Louise, never mind who he wants to fuck 3. They've already got gay incest going on with the Pesto twins, and that should be enough bum-darts and deviancy for even the most jaded SJW

>>27656 They hope everyone is gay because they think they're spiting the other tribe.

>>27656 Fucking found it. OF COURSE it was on fucking Huffpost. >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKV5kHeqc9o H. Jon (((Benjamin)))