>>78335236
Because BoJack? That's my only guess.

>>78335236
all i could come up with was budget. might have been too costly

also i think theres another sitcom with this decade style on tv right now, so maybe not to class with them? i dunno

>>78335236
Burr wanted to do the voice but didn't want to be the leading actor.

The forest fire definitely would have been easier to produce.

While kid's animation is following the trend of everything looking noodly and honestly just Adventure Time-y, it seems like adult animation is following the Adult Swim model, which basically says "No one is actually here because they care about the animation, they just want to hear the edgy jokes, so just get the same sweatshop that draws Family Guy and The Simpsons to do everything"

is it any fun?

>>78335359
Frst two episodes are meh, but then it becomes a quite enyojable show. It's no Bojack, but it doesn't have to.

>>78335236
It's probably a lot cheaper than making it live action. Plus, it's Bill Burr's pet project, and it's a lot easier and less time just having to voice a character rather than act on screen.

>>78335359
It's okay. It definitely feels like there's potential, but it's so short it doesn't quite reach whatever it's trying to be.

>Kids getting hit
>Kid actors in general
>Forrest fire
>Man getting decapitated by a plane propeller
>Burr wanting to lead but not looking the part
>Finding someone who looks like Sam in this day and age
>Air port filming is a bitch
>Raindeers
>The hassle of getting all obsolete technology and style props getting made
Not all cartoons have to be Gumball anyway

>>78335442
>Sam
l meant Vic