YouTube's Algorithm is Terrible For All Creators, not Just Online Ones

Do you guys remember back in the day when you could look up on YouTube and find videos on some of the most obscure nonsense ever? Like, watching a movie review on the fourth Karate Kid movie, or a video game review on some unlicensed NES Game that nobody ever heard of, or some foreign cartoon that never made it in the U.S. but was still somewhat decent. Have you ever noticed that now most YouTube creators tend to be making videos based more on trends and things that have become or were always really popular? Is there any reason that the Nostalgia Critic is reviewing the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings movies outside of the fact that they would get a lot of views? Has AVGN done a review of a lesser known game since Hudson Hawk? Maybe My Horse Prince, but that is an outlier in a sea of Garfield, SimCity and Final Fantasy 6 Reviews. You ever wonder why this kind of stuff is happening? Of course you probably haven't, because the answer has been talked about by everyone from controversial YouTubers to nobodies on the most obscure Social Media platform; YouTube has changed, and that change is bad for all artists and creators, not just online ones.

Obviously, we know why the YouTube algorithm is bad for online creators, it rewards monotony and content theft while punishing original work and obscure topics. I'm sure all those rappers who react to ERB and Freshy Kanal make great music, but the majority of people only watch their react videos, no judgement. If you're a media reviewer then the algorithm will punish you if you decide to talk about an obscure property that you hold absolutely dear to your heart. It makes sense why people make those videos that will do well, YouTube is a business and a job for many people, they have to talk about what will get them a lot of views. The problem with this is that it encourages content farms, YouTube channels that make three or more videos a day or have a dozen or so other channels that do pretty much the same thing, think 5-Minute Crafts or WatchMojo. These channels are able to pump out content because they take less effort and have bigger teams than Joe-Schmoe-Body-o'No with only 1000 subscribers.

However, I also want to stress that this algorithm is not just bad for the YouTube creators, it's just as bad, arguably even more, for other creators; filmmakers, game developers, musicians, animators, comic creators, the works. I realize that this does not seem like something worth complaining about, after all film studios spend thousands, upwards of millions on advertising, as do game studios. Plus, it isn't like the music industry is suffering from a garbage algorithm withholding their paychecks, Disney isn't losing money over YouTube deciding not to push their latest upload. Yes, the studios aren't going to suffer because of YouTube's algorithm, because the studios aren't people, they are corporations that don't have the capacity of suffering. No, the real people who will suffer are the artists who make the content for the corporations to hoard money from, especially indie creators.

Let me create a hypothetical; say you're a game developer, and you're spending months on this passion project video game. You don't have any money to afford a team so you create everything by hand, the sprites, the music, the coding, everything. It's heavily inspired by the games you loved growing up and know there are still demand for even though they really don't make them anymore, and you put a lot of attention to detail into this game, what elements to take from your favourite games, and which ones to leave behind. After years of work, you finally release your game to an astounding zero fanfare. Nobody talks about your game, very few people actually buy your game, and by the time it gains traction as a cult hit, the algorithm will have moved on to something completely different.

I've learned about so many weird movies thanks to online reviewers, Movies like Freaked, Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure, Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings, and The Room. Games like Klonoa, Harvest Moon: Animal Parade, Remington Super Slam Hunting: Africa, The Stanley Parable,  Thief Simulator, and of course I can't forget the mention Stardew Valley. Other things like The Legend of Calmity Jane and Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century, the Legend of Zelda Manga, all of these things were stuff that was introduced to me via online reviewers and content creators. For a lot of people, the internet is where one learns about media that interests them, everyone from reviewers to comedians to countdown artists, all of these lesser known, up and coming, or cult classic pieces of media that ultimately would have just been forgotten and now have been given a second life. Now it's all replaced with brand sponsorship deals and the popular seeking out the popular.

The internet used to be a fantastic place to learn about this movie that had zero staying power but was completely up your alley, because that is the kind of place YouTube used to be. A lot of this does have to fall on the shoulders of how YouTube is used nowadays, we don't really subscribe to personalities or characters, we subscribe to content, so who cares that this critic is talking about a pilot to an internet animated series that is full of promise? They aren't talking about The Amazing Digital Circus. Recently, some BlueSky users have been criticizing Saberspark for seeing the Snow White remake in theatres while the new Looney Tunes movie, The Day The Earth Blew Up, was hardly mentioned by him. However, to play devil's advocate a little bit, what do you think will get more views? The highly talked about, controversial and rage-baiting Disney movie, or the Looney Tunes movie that has stakes only certain people seem to care about. I'm sure Saberspark would have much preferred to watch and talk about The Day The Earth Blew Up, but between the two movies, one is very clearly the one more people will view. This is not speculation either, I can back this up, Doug Walker made a video about both movies, and in six days the video about The Day The Earth Blew Up got 39K views, while in half that time the video on Snow White got 138K views. (As of writing on March 24, 2025)

I can kind of see why it's becoming more popular for studios and companies to just completely remove stuff from streaming because it's not getting the views, because why spend money on something that is not going to be popular? YouTube is the same thing, why push this video that isn't getting any views when this video could get us more ad revenue? This is why it was surprising to many that Disney extended Elemental's theatrical run, and that move paid off because Elemental was a sleeper hit. However, Disney can pull that off because they're a multi-billion dollar company that can take a hit like that. Imagine if the company behind Flow did that, they'd be bankrupt before making a second movie. Funny enough, I can only find videos talking about Flow after it won the Golden Globe, which says to me that the movie would have been relegated to cult status if it wasn't an award show darling.

My ultimate point here is that, because YouTube's algorithm does not encourage branching out and discussing lesser known properties, a lot of creators are going to suffer. Indie creators depend largely on word of mouth and if that is unable to spread then that project ends up unfinished or completely rushed to finish it. We need YouTubers to talk about lesser known media, up and coming projects that show promise and cult classics that deserve re-evaluation, and the great thing is that the power to change this is in our hands. Encourage your favourite media reviewers to talk about obscure things, and actively watch those videos when they come out, don't just stick them in your watch later bin and forget about them. Be aware of content farms and never be afraid to re-watch a video you've seen before. It's also important to share and talk about things you're into, not just online but in person too, which is why video stores and comic shops are great places to check out. YouTube's push for popular content is bad for everyone, so let's do something about it.

Is There a Place For Physical Media to Return?

Many people who talk about and discuss things like video games, movies and TV shows online have all probably had the same thought once or twice; "Why is this thing I like not on any streaming service?", truly it is a question that perplexes many. Companies are taking shows and movies off of streaming for... really no real reason and some things are just being put onto some random and unnecessary service for again, no real reason. The amount of streaming services has just made what was once a convenient alternative become the very thing it was the alternative to; Streaming is the new cable. This annoying disregard for consumer convenience and poor treatment of popular shows and movies has made people reminisce about the days of physical media, which all begs the question, can it come back?

Physical media refers mostly to releases of media on physical formats, most notably CDs, DVDs and Blu-Rays, also this 4K Ultra stuff, I dunno what that's about, and vinyl records, those have made a comeback. Of course, Physical media has its limitations, discs of any kind are fragile, prone to scratching and degrade over time. That all being said, I remember back in the day you would have a lot of really cool things on DVDs. I remember being just as transfixed on the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory DVD menu, watching a chocolate bar go through the factory being made and tested by the oompa-loompas, or going through the menus on the Red Dwarf DVDs to find the Easter Eggs. Now a-days, DVD menus are just sad, a singular splash image that is usually just a stock image or the DVD cover image and if you're lucky it will have some music. When I watched Wonder Park for my review, I was taken aback by the fact it had an animated intro for the main menu, you just don't see that anymore.

Menus weren't the only cool thing on DVDs though, you also had commentary tracks, sometimes they put interactive games on there, or even other cool bonuses, with some of my favourites including seeing a Red Dwarf episode reversed, as the gimmick was that the crew were stranded on an Earth that was going backwards in time, and on a Fraggle Rock DVD if you answered every question correctly on a quiz you got some bonus episodes of the Fraggle Rock Animated Series... okay that prize was not worth it but it was still cool. These are the kind of things that a lot of people miss about physical media, that and the fact that when you buy it you actually own it outright, which a lot of digital distribution store-fronts are really bad with, treating their services more like online rental shops where the return date is "Vaguely in the future".

So with all of this in mind, is there a place for physical media to come back? I think the answer is... no, because it never really went anywhere. Yes, most people are using digital storefronts and streaming services instead of buying physical media, however, physical media isn't dead. You will still find DVDs and Blu-rays out in stores, a new format was released nine years ago in 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray, and again, vinyl records have made a comeback. The question really is not if there is a place for physical media to come back, the question is if there is a place for physical media to become as big as it used to be, and the answer to that I think is... maybe.

The big problem is that, of course, media of any kind is expensive. You would probably think that something on a digital storefront would be cheaper, and in some cases it is, but I'm sorry, 50 dollars is a lot to spend on a game on Steam, I mean it's a lot to spend on one game in general, but especially on Steam where you don't have to make-up material costs of making a disc, game case and game manual, even if games no longer come with manuals anymore. The reality is that spending a monthly fee for nearly unlimited access to movies and TV Shows sounds like a better deal that buying a hundred dollar piece of hardware and a 20-40 dollar DVD or Blu-ray of one movie or 100 dollars or more for a boxset of one TV show. Physical media also takes up physical space, and as someone who has a lot of video tapes, DVDs and music CDs, it can add up over time, which is a benefit of only having digital stuff as it only takes up digital space.

Of course, there is also piracy, but I would never (Wink) recommend my readers (wink) to pirate their media (wink). In all seriousness, piracy has become a major problem in the streaming era, well "problem" in quotation marks it really only effects the CEOs and shareholders, largely because of the unpredictability of streaming. This show or movie you love could be taken down from the streaming service you have any day and placed on a streaming service you don't have and don't want to pay for, if it comes back to streaming at all. Look, I don't care what Disney says, Prop Culture was one of the best docuseries on Disney+ and taking it down with no plans to put it back was was a terrible thing to do. Nobody wants to admit that the best way to deal with piracy is to make media easier to access, because that would imply that investing in D.R.M.s and SecuROM nonsense would be a waste of money.

That all being said, I think the main thing that keeps people on streaming services is just the simple fact that for the most-part, they don't want that extra content. Most people don't want DVD commentaries, or bonus games or fully-animated menu screens, they want the movie and the option to change the language and subtitles, everything else is not a bonus, it's unnecessary, like a rug on a carpet. So, how do we rectify this? The short answer is I don't know, streaming has completely changed the way we watch movies and especially TV Shows now, to the point where I really don't think that physical media will ever really be as big as it used to be. That all being said and done, it's not like there aren't people who still want physical media, if only for the ability to actually own something you purchase instead of having your ownership of a product decided by a corporation, and collectors are always looking for things to add to their collections. I think the best solution is that, if you prefer physical media you should go out and buy it if you can, and don't be afraid to cancel your subscriptions to any streaming service, missing out on something does not have to be a bad thing. Physical media never went anywhere, it just stopped being as popular as it used to be.

Also if anyone knows where I can find a Video copy of the 1977 Raggedy Ann & Andy movie I would be really happy, I think it would look great next to my other Raggedy Ann VHS Tapes.

Shrek 5 Looks Different, and that is okay... for now.

Once again, Shrek has got his big green ogre fingers choke-holding the attention of the internet, though this time it is for less positive, but still highly meme-able reasons. The announcement of the fifth movie in the Shrek series has come with a new artstyle and to say that fans are not happy is an understatement. The change in artstyle has sparked outcry with people even calling for fans to do the "Ugly Sonic Treatment" to try and get DreamWorks to change the artstyle back to the original. Despite the fact that people have absolutely learned the wrong lesson from Sonic, one must wonder why such a decision has caused such a reaction.

So, what does this new artstyle look like and why is it a noticeable departure? DreamWorks was releasing 3D animated movies in a time where Disney was still pretty dedicated to more traditional 2D animated films, though Pixar was definitely marking a shift for the company as their features were becoming more successful and popular than Disney's 2D features. Pixar's animation style has always been Disney adjacent, bright colours and very clean, DreamWorks on the other hand had a much darker and grungier style in their 3D features, right from the very beginning. Pixar gave their ants bright blue colours, while DreamWorks gave them more realistic reddish-browns, but the ultimate example of the difference between the two companies is, as you have probably guessed, Shrek.

Shrek was a fairy-tale movie that did not look like anything Disney was putting out. While the movie could be quite colourful, it wasn't the bright shiny colours of Pixar, and it was the usual kind of grungy and gross that DreamWorks was more known for. This style aided the writing of the movie, which was a satire on Disney's classic princess films and the Disney renaissance. However, things have been slowly changing over the years. While Disney and Pixar still do their bright and colourful films, there is a noticeable shift in styles. You'll notice that they aren't afraid to use more muted or mundane colours, or even darker colours. Onward was a fantasy movie set in a modern human-esque world, and the colour palette reflected that. Lightyear was entirely set on a grey-brown alien planet, Raya and the Last Dragon had moments in dull dry deserts. While Disney and Pixar can and do still make movies like Elemental or Wish, movies with a more colourful palette and artstyle, it's clear that they are branching out into something much different.

I think this is where the change in artstyle comes from, now that Disney is making the more realistic looking 3D movies, what is the movie franchise that satirized Disney going to do? It reminds me a lot of the Sega-Nintendo rivalry in the 90s where the Genesis was the hot new console with a 16-Bit processor and its slogan was "Genesis Does What Nintendon't", highlighting the difference between the Genesis and the 8-Bit Nintendo Entertainment System, with the Genesis releasing in America two years before the Super Nintendo did. When the Super Nintendo did come out, something had to change, Nintendo had their own 16-Bit console, just like how Disney has their own realistic 3D animation style, so Shrek is being given a more cartoony style, and not many people like it.

Personally, I do have to wonder why the change in artstyle now, especially when the previous movie in the Shrek franchise, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, looked amazing with the more standard artstyle, even though it did noticeably take influence from other stylized animated films like Spider-Verse. It definitely feels like a rash decision made for attention rather than anything else. Of course the change in style is not completely without merit, but there was no warm-up to this change so it felt absolutely jarring. Of course, this would be fine if something improved, and the big problem is that, for the most part, it looks the same. It does not appear to be any kind of big leap forward in artstyle or technological evolution, it looks like a DreamWorks movie, just more cartoony. If there was a noticeable improvement in artstyle or technology, I don't think fans would be as upset with the change in artstyle, but as far as we can tell, it isn't.

I'm not going to sit here and say this artstyle change is bad or even unnecessary, but I can see why people think it is. There was no build-up to this change, the previous Puss in Boots movie looked phenomenal, there does not appear to be any improvement that coincides with the change, and it does feel like DreamWorks is trying to differentiate itself from Disney and Pixar without much thought. Personally, I am interested in seeing what this new artstyle brings, but I will be honest when I say that they are going to have to prove that this change was necessary. I don't think it looks bad at all, but if they can't justify this change in artstyle, than whether it looks good or not in irrelevant. DreamWorks, this is your chance to step up and prove us wrong, unlike what happened with Ruby Gillman.

Flow won the Oscar... What does this mean?

I think it's safe to say that the Oscars have never really had a lot of respect towards animation. To date, only three animated movies have been nominated for Best Feature, none of them winning, and the Best Animated Feature category always feels like an after thought. For example, in 2006, three movies were nominated for Best Animated Feature, Monster House, Cars, and the winner, Happy Feet. Granted 2006 does not seem like a... great year for animated cinema, but this was the year we got Flushed Away, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, Overt the Hedge, Paprika, and A Scanner Darkly, there definitely were more movies to at least nominate. There was a lot of discourse in the 2010s about how bad the Academy treated animation, and it seemed like that was going to carry over into the 2020s.

In comes 2022, once again, 2022 was a phenomenal year for animated cinema, Turning Red, The Sea Beast, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, Marcell the Shell with Shoes On, Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio, I did not pick those movies out at random, those were the nominees for Best Animated Feature at the 95th Academy Awards, and the crazy thing is, even though there absolutely were some snubs, I am not at all upset about any of them. Sure, The Bad Guys, Apollo 10½, The Bob's Burgers Movie, Charlotte, My Father's Dragon, all of them could have, and some might argue should have, been nominated, but at the end of the day, this was an absolutely solid selection of nominees, but honestly, the winner was kind of obvious. Seriously, if anyone was expecting Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio to not walk away with the award, then I don't know what to tell you.

I think it was 2023 where the first "Real Surprise" in this category happened, as Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, the movie that swept the Annie Awards, lost to The Boy and the Heron, which is a pretty big surprise considering. Okay, it's not like if Robot Dreams walked away with the award, that would have been huge, but it's still pretty surprising that the Academy did not choose the super popular movie that everyone was raving about, or the Disney movie. This culminates into the 97th Academy Awards where the Robot Dreams level movie actually did win the award. While The Wild Robot was the super popular movie everyone was talking about, and Inside Out 2 was the Disney movie, Flow was the dark horse candidate that I literally did not anticipate winning the award.

I feel that a lot of it comes from two things, firstly the already established view the Academy has towards animation, but secondly, the absolute bore that the Annie Awards have kind of become lately. I haven't talked about this much, but the last two Annie Awards have been kind of boring, not the shows themselves they were as entertaining as any other award show, but the winners were boring. Across the Spider-Verse and The Wild Robot were not bad movies, but were they really good enough to sweep every category they were nominated for? I think one or two other movies deserved some of those awards personally. Regardless, it's kind of giving the feeling that they want the safe pick, like yes The Wild Robot deserved the Best Animated Feature Annie, but I don't think anyone would have been upset if Vengeance Most Fowl or even Inside Out 2 won. Winning the Annie just kind of feels unimportant now, but Flow winning the Oscar? That is huge.

So, what does this mean? Well, I don't think this is going to begin a huge shift for the Oscars, I believe at some point they are going to go back to awarding the safe and predictable option, but I do think this means something for cinema. Let's not forget, Flow is not just an animated movie, it's an independent, foreign animated movie, a foreign animated movie that isn't from the U.K. or Japan, it's Latvian, a country that has no foothold in American pop culture, and it beat The Wild Robot and Inside Out 2, that is a pretty big deal. Like, the Best Animated Feature Oscar isn't really a "Major Award", but it does matter to people, it's not like Best Documentary Feature Film category, people do care about it. I don't think it's hard to imagine a future where this win is a major catalyst for change in animation, Indie projects not only becoming more common, but also becoming more ambitious, foreign animated projects being put out there to seek an audience. I think with Flow's Oscar win, and the increasing popularity and accessibility of internet content, we're going to see a new golden age of independent content, the likes of which to surpass both video rental stores and public access television.

Of course, there is always the possibility that I am wrong, maybe nothing happens, Flow's victory was a fluke and the award goes to Illumination next time, but I think things are already changing. Dana Terrace, creator of The Owl House, is working on a project with Glitch Productions, the studio behind Murder Drones and The Amazing Digital Circus, Flow has already been added to the Criterion Collection, it seems to me that change is inevitable, maybe more independent movies will win major awards, maybe the Academy will have their own independent categories. Arguably this has already happened in video games, so it's only a matter of time before it happens to animation, and I think the real question is, are we truly prepared for that?

Analyzing The Simpsons: Is Bart Simpson Actually "Cool"?

We all know who The Simpson family members are as characters. Homer is the dimwitted but ultimately loving father, Marge is the caring but no-nonsense housewife, Lisa is the smart and principled daughter, Maggie is the surprisingly competent baby, and Bart is the cool, trouble-making son. However, is that actually true? I stand by most of what I say about Homer Simpson, I think that beneath his callousness, he is still a good person who cares deeply about his family, and I would love to make a whole analysis on as to why I believe that. However, there has been someone else in the Simpson family that absolutely mystifies me, someone who has such an established persona that I'm no entirely sure is accurate to who the character is. It's time I ask this question in earnest, let's take a page out of Super Eyepatch Wolf and TheRealJims and talk Simpsons; Is Bart Simpson inherently a cool kid?

Now, to begin with, it will be important to define the word "Cool". What is "Cool"? There are a lot of definitions for the word "Cool" which range to unfriendliness, calmness and the temperature. The "cool" definition we're going for is the aesthetic one. Described as "Being compatible with admirable social norms of society or a group of people" by the Oxford English Dictionary, or at least, by Wikipedia sourcing the Oxford English Dictionary. This definition is going to be the big point of contention for this argument, because the perception of what is "Cool" varies from not only group to group, but also person to person. So, it will be good to analyze the kind of culture that Bart Simpson wants to fit in.

First and foremost, Bart Simpson is a rebel, he is someone who likes to act different from the crowd. This is showcased especially in "Bart's Inner Child", where he finds that once everyone starts acting like he does, he is not as fond of it as he thought. This is because, at his core, Bart Simpson wants to stand out, he wants to be noticed. In "Summer of 4 Ft. 2", when Bart sees Lisa trying to make new friends, he does a whole routine to get their attention, even sabotaging Lisa out of jealousy. It's very much in Bart's character that when attention is taken away from him, he doesn't always handle it well. This is why Bart constantly has to pull bigger and more destructive pranks, because the old cherry bomb in the toilet would get old, so to keep the attention on him, he has to do more outrageous things.

On my Tumblr, I put up a poll where I asked this question. Tumblr can be a fantastic place for communities and fandoms, but it is also a total hellhole of a website, plus the poll only got nineteen votes anyway so take it with a grain of salt. On the poll, I gave three options, "Absolutely" Bart is inherently cool, "Well... Kinda" Bart isn't cool, but has his moments, and "No, he's a dork", which should be self-explanatory. Out of the nineteen votes, the majority of voters, 47.4% of them, said "Well... Kinda", falling into the middle where Bart does have his moments of being cool, but overall isn't really a cool kid. 36.8% of voters thought that Bart is inherently cool, while a minority, 15.8% of voters, voted that Bart isn't cool, and he's a dork. To be absolutely clear, I don't vote in my own polls, largely because I want the results to surprise me, and I can't really say I'm surprised by these results. Even if I had one hundred votes, or even a thousand votes, I expect the results would be rather similar, with most people taking the middle ground, but a larger majority saying that Bart is cool. The irritating part of it is that I specifically put "(Explain)" in the options because I wanted to hear people's opinions, and there were only two comments that gave one sentence explanations, and I'm pretty sure one is a role-play blog.

So it's clear that a majority of people do, on some level, think that Bart is a cool kid, and I can see why. Remember, The Simpsons was a big part of the pop culture of the 1990s, so Bart encapsulated a lot of the clichés and stereotypes of disenfranchised youths. Bart was not afraid to disrespect authority, be it his principal, his father, or whoever he sets his mind on. However, I don't think that inherently makes anyone "Cool", being a rebel is not just how you respond to something, but how you stand for something. Bart will pull pranks, do graffiti, put cherry bombs in toilets, but when push comes to shove, he still goes to Church with his family, even though he openly dislikes it and thinks it's rubbish. What I'm saying is, I don't think Bart is actually cool at all, he very clearly does what he does for attention, not for any other reason. He may take a stand for something, sometimes, but more often than not, he's doing something solely for the attention he receives from it.

This may have changed in later seasons, I'm not exactly TheRealJims or The Simpsons Theory over here, but my view of the character is that, he only causes trouble because it gets him attention that he craves. Bart is very much the kind of person who would openly mock a pop-star one minute, and then become their biggest fan the minute they become cool to like. Bart may be a rebel, but he still follows a crowd because that is where the most eyes will be on him, and I don't think that is particularly cool. I think being "cool" is a lot about being true to yourself, but also standing for principles, and being willing to stick to those despite how much others try to beat you back into conformity. When people are mocking you for being Vegetarian, or are trying to force you back into Christianity when you left, and you stand by your principles to defy them, that is what I think is genuinely cool. What I'm saying is, I think Lisa is actually cooler than Bart is.

It's kind of ironic in a sense, Bart, the bad boy rebel who skateboards and disrespects authority is the uncool kid, while Lisa, the over achieving nerd who has few regular friends and spends most of her time alone is the actual cool one. However, that is only ironic on a superficial level, if it's ironic at all, look the word "Irony" is thrown around so much in analysis that it's kind of lost any meaning. Regardless, the point I'm making here is that Bart is really only cool on a surface level.

I think that saying Bart is a "Dork" is a bit much, like I wouldn't put him in the same league as Milhouse. That being said, Bart comes off as someone who is very conscious about his image, so he'll only try something new if others encourage it. Bart is someone who could very easily slip into that "loser" role, become someone who is washed up and desperate for attention. If we were to use an analogy, I see Bart as a YouTube channel that has millions of subscribers, but the content is just kind of bland and same-y, while Lisa is a more specialized niche channel that has large gaps between uploads, but the content is engaging and gets genuine engagement. In other words, Bart is a MrBeast while Lisa is a DefunctLand.

In some respects, I don't think this revelation is really that shocking, there are lots of moments where we get a glimpse behind the curtain of Bart. I think even the writers kind of pegged Bart as a follower in a rebel's jacket from the start, as seen in "The Telltale Head", where Bart almost proudly shows that he cut the head off the Jebediah Springfield Statue, until the bully trio start saying they're going to beat up the person that did it. It makes sense that Bart does things that he thinks will get him the most attention. Really, the idea that Bart is not as cool as he thinks he is, probably isn't that new of a concept, I mean his best friend is Milhouse of all people, the ultimate follower. It kind of says something when hanging out with Martin is an upgrade. I wouldn't go so far as to call Bart a "Poser", mostly because that word is like "Irony" in that it's been thrown around so much it's lost all meaning, but also because I do think Bart does genuinely enjoy the things he does, but it seems like that is more of a perk to doing them than anything else.

Bart Simpson is not a cool kid, that is the main argument I'm making, that is the opinion I am expressing. However, I think the main takeaway here is, Bart isn't uncool because of the things he does, he's uncool because he does things for essentially the wrong reasons. It kind of reminds me of when influencers or celebrities make a statement, there is a difference between Conrad Veidt mandating in his contracts that any Nazi he portrays has to be a villain, and Madonna making the "American Life" album, one is an actor making a demand that others have to follow because of something he believes in, the other is a musician who is making claims and statements to drum up attention and controversy to keep the spotlight on them for just a little bit longer. Bart Simpson is an attention seeking kid who does things predominately for the kind of attention he would get from it, and I don't think that makes him cool. Still, he's cooler than Milhouse, so that's got to be worth something, right?