Quote Originally Posted by MJN SEIFER View Post
It doesn't really surprise me if the movie is at least decent, and it's cool if it makes fun of itself at times, which is fun to do. The silly thing is, even at seven one would be technically "too old" for it, as it is billed as preschool show, even though to me it never seemed like one (but I think I just got the wrong idea of what a preschool show is, as I've been surprised by a lot of shows turning out to be preschool, when they all looked at least "during school" - I'm actually planning on doing a YouTube video about this subject one day.)
A well written family show should be enjoyable to any age. Obviously the main target audience is young children, but older children and adults will often watch it as well, so it's worth making it enjoyable for them as well.

Quote Originally Posted by MJN SEIFER View Post
One thing that has been surprising me is how it's getting a bit of a joke response on Twitter - I understand people making jokes about it having a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (even as someone who views children's media as something that should be given fair criticism and praise as written/animated/acted work, I understand that you can't really hold it in the same league as an award winning ground breaking movie), but people were acting surprised that it has political corruption (something that children's shows can have - especially the villain is a corrupt mayor), the fact that the Paw Patrol were referred to as "first responders" (despite being dogs, in what way are they not first responders?) and generally being praised as a good movie - like being called "gripping" or "entertaining" or whatever, implying that kids' movies can't be referred to as this.
It bugs me when people excuse bad children's movie as 'it's just for kids', like we shouldn't care about quality of movies for them. So I guess it doesn't surprise me that the same people are shocked that a children's movie could be actually good.