Not everything has a deep meaning...

[TrulyBritish]

Hello members of the Escapist *waves enthusiastically*, my name is TrulyBritish, the gentleman devil, the devilish gentleman and I'm going to share a personal bugbear of mine.

Now this bugbear is the tendency of some people to try and look too far into certain shows, specifically for me, the older cartoon show "Courage the Cowardly Dog". For anyone who didn't watch the show, it was basically a bunch of somewhat surreal adventures of a cowardly pink dog called Courage who had to continually save his owners Muriel and Eustace from an assortments of villains, such as piano playing ghosts, a crocodile in a hat and cape who turned people into puppets and "Le Quack", living as they did "In the Middle of Nowhere".
For a while now there has been a theory going around that not all is as it seems in that show, that in fact what Courage sees isn't real.
-
"But TrulyBritish, you magnificent bastard," I hear you cry, "It's a cartoon, of course it's not real!"
To which I speak unto you:
"Yes, I know but shut up".
-
The theory states:
1) Due to Eustace and Muriel being too old to walk Courage, Courage is unable to go outside and is unfamiliar with what's on the outside world, hence why Courage perceives them as living in the "middle of nowhere".
2) All the villains of the show are actually normal people, but because Courage is scared of them he sees them as horrible monsters which he needs to protect his owners from. This is why Muriel and Eustace both seem so nonchalant about everything going on while Courage freaks out.
This is of course the true hidden meaning to show and is utterly brilliant. Except for the fact it doesn't hold up in the slightest when you actually watch the show and realise things like:
1) Courage is seen outside repeatedly and in several episodes is shown being taken to cities and diners, with Eustace and Muriel being shown to be in actually fairly good shape.
2) The fact that towards the end of the episode Muriel and Eustace both usually end up screaming in horror and asking for help (although of curse this can just be hand waved away as Courage misinterpreting what I can only presume to be perfectly natural screaming as cries for help).
3) If Courage is a normal dog, why on earth does he seem to understand the concept of a computer? For that matter, Courage has to have a fairly lucid imagination in any case considering some episodes. For example, in Season episode 8, one of the stories is about a Goose God which ends up falling in love with a tractor at the end. I would be very interested in knowing what events prompt a dog to imagine that.
So basically, the premise only works if you say Courage has completely and utterly misinterpreted just about everything that actually went on. And you could use that on just about any show to say it's not actually "real".

TL,DR: The Courage the Cowardly Dog "theory" is utter nonsense and I'm interested in knowing if:
1) You actually think the theory has merit or I've made a mistake.
2) Are there any "theories" that you find utterly implausible or ridiculous and why?
3) Or alternatively, are there any theories you think DO have merit or could make sense?
Err... sorry the post is a tad long as well, now that I think about it.

 

[nariette]

I don't think it really goes that far. It's a kids show, it's not meant to go deep, the only deep things in most animation films and series are subtle sex-jokes so the parents of the kids can have a laugh too. For example in Wallace and Gromit, when Wallace covers his naked body with a cardboard box, it says "contains nuts" on the box. I don't think there's any more meaning to the show "courage the cowardly dog" than to overcome your fears for the people you love.

The same things is pretty much happening to Disney's Frozen right now. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved it but there's no need to overanalyse it.

captcha: "hard cheese"

 

[Nouw]

I believe people should be free to theorize and analyse whatever they want, however they want. This doesn't mean I have to agree, e.g. the dark interpretation of My Neighbour Totoro which I personally think is silly, but if people find enjoyment from finding the 'hidden meanings,' who am I to call them wrong? Basically, it's the never-ending debate of 'the blank canvas' versus 'creator's intent' and 'reading it wrong' and 'reading it too deeply.'

There are exceptions of course when a work of art really does have an intended 'deep meaning.' Take Rob Ager's analysis of 2001: A Space Odyssey and its relationship with IBM for example. It's hard to refute it considering the evidence he has compiled.

 

[Scarim Coral]

1. I just think you're just over analysing it but that's ok.

2. When it come to implausible theory, this is what I think of first-

Spoiler: Aladdin

Aladdin is based on Middle Easten forktales and Disney being Disney spiced it up with their musical numbers and memorable character (Genie) so I am dismissive of that theory.

3. In saying so, the theories I have been buying (granted I don't think it's 100% correct but it's interesting to read) into is Gravity Fall-

Spoiler: One of the theories

This person channel is full of Gravity Fall theories and I have only watched a couple of them (like the idea that Uncle Stan may have a secret twin.

The reason being (why I think it could be plausible) is that the show premier is full of mysteries (serious each episode credits has a series of numbers that can be decoded to reveal a message) which I read that the creator will explain everything. I just find it more believable since with that many intentional mysteries splashes about, someone will try to make sense of it all.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

1. I just think you're just over analysing it but that's ok.

2. When it come to implausible theory, this is what I think of first-

Spoiler: Aladdin

Aladdin is based on Middle Easten forktales and Disney being Disney spiced it up with their musical numbers and memorable character (Genie) so I am dismissive of that theory.

I'll admit, that's a very entertaining idea. And unlike the "Dark Totoro" theory, it doesn't take away from the movie at all or change how the viewer should see it.

OT: What a coincidence that I just finished watching Evangelion 3.0 for the second time and then this thread comes along? h well, to answer question 2:

Pretty much any theory about Neon Genesis Evangelion being about anything else than a young man's growing pains. I've seen countless theories about how it's paralleling the Bible, or based off of banned sections of it and other ludicrous blibbedybloo like that. It's not, and the more I see people trying to say it is, the funnier it gets. Also, the theory than 3.0 is a good movie. I say it's a theory because it's not a good movie. Sorry, personal preference doesn't count. If you say that film is good, you're an idiot [/flamebait]

The "Dark" interpretation of Totoro is complete balderdash, and is just trying to ruin one of the best animated films ever.

Can't be arsed to read about a show I've never heard of to answer question #1 and can't come up with any theories right now to answer #3.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Theories are OK with me so long as they're interesting. If we're going to speculate let's at least keep it interesting. Truth is unattainable anyway.

 

[Nouw]

If you say that film is good, you're an idiot [/flamebait]

That's a strange way of spelling music video.

Spoiler: Seriously, have you listened to this shit?

Whenever you bring up 3.0, I will be there to bring up the soundtrack

I'm just posting separately because apparently if you edit one into an existing post you don't get notified.

 

[The Wykydtron]

I've never watched any Courage and I was never that into all the Disney and Pixar stuff but I can answer the general discussion I suppose.

I have to over-analyse everything, it makes things more fun. Seriously if someone or something gives me an interesting idea I will come up with some theory or commentary or something. I'm one of those guys who thought Gurren Lagann was really deep and meaningful coming towards the last third of the series for example.

Since there's a new thread on it right now it reminds me that Attack on Titan's entire 3D Gear mechanic is actually a manifestation of how screwed humanity is vs the Titans. It works best when there's a load of flat surfaces at varying heights and widths to jump around AKA a city but is freaking terrible when on flat ground. The entire overlying combat mechanic operates on the assumption that they're going to be fighting on the defensive (failing at) protecting their cities because the cities are the only place (aside from forests but that's different) where the Gear shines

But hey they just rolled with the 3D Gear because it looks fucking badass right?

 

[FalloutJack]

This reminds me of the two film classes I took in college. They were entertaining, but they were not very good. The sheer amount of things people will say a movie must have as a deeper meaning to them... And while it is true that movies can be multi-layered and such, it is also true that many are NOT. Some movies are not meant to be deep and that trying to see it deep is like diving into a kiddie pool for fish.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Fans comic up with theories is ok.

If the game/movie/whatever is surreal and is supposed to be open to interpretation (Persona 1-4, OFF/HOME/RESET, Shin Megami Tensei, ect) then that's to be expected.

If the game/movie/whatever is only surreal is a cartoonish sense (like Courage... it's on Netflix. Guess how I'm wasting my Sunday) and it has no plausibility due to everything being explained in an equally as surreal but sensical way, then theories are not great. (Evangelion is this. The creators said that they just put crosses and shit around because they looked cool and Japan doesn't have much of a cross/Jesus taboo because only about 0.002% of the population are practising Christians, or something like that.)

All in all, fan theories aren't bad. Just don't fucking say Gigyas is a fetus. If you say Gigyas is a fetus, I am going to buy you an NES, a copy of MOTHER, and I'm going to make you play the entire game at gunpoint, you idiot.

 

[F'Angus]

One of my funniest school experiences was when we spent half a year learning all the secret meaning behind this poem about a house collapsing and how it represented all kinds of stuff in life...and then we went on a trip to a poetry thing and someone asked the writer about the special meanings behind the poem and she told us no, the teachers were all wrong, the poem had no metaphors for anything it was written purely because her house was falling down and she thought it was a good subject. Half a year of English classes wasted.

I'm of the belief things do not have special meanings behind them.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I believe I've got some fun articles to add to this (thanks Cracked!):
http://www.cracked.com/article_19266_5-movie-fan-theories-that-make-more-sense-than-movie.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_20347_5-fan-theories-that-make-classic-movies-even-better.html

http://www.cracked.com/article/18367_6-insane-fan-theories-that-actually-make-great-movies-better/

Whether you agree with the opinions that these theories make the movies "better" or not, they are pretty interesting to think about. I'm sure most of them are simply people connecting dots in ways that authors/creators didn't intend, but you never know.