>>1000098
The tone does not need to match up for it to work, in my opinion. I think it might be a bit hamfisted to expect every comedy show to look bright and animated, while every serious show looks dour and grim. That's the mindset that made all that absolute tripe in the 90s and early 2000s. If you can't look past an art style to appreciate it separately from the narrative tone, then I'd say that's a problem. You should be able to figure out what to feel without needing obvious visual cues like some kind of ocular laugh track.
That said, I would also like to at least see an attempt at more realistic or serious art styles. The market right now is completely over-saturated with bubbly, simplistic, round, "CalArts" style shows and it's very boring. I just want variety.
I agree entirely with your second point though; comedy and seriousness are very difficult to mash together. I think when they do work, it elevates a show well beyond something that's only ever funny or serious. I admire that people try, in that respect, to weave the two together. The issue is just that it is difficult, as you said, and most creators mash them too close together. It creates a whiplash of suddenly serious moments we don't care about and that have no impact, or suddenly comedic moments that aren't funny and ruin the mood.
>>1034163
That's obviously not what he was saying and you know it. If you even have an argument to defend, learn to defend it properly.