Since the beginning of popular media, there's always been the instinct to take multiple existing stories or characters within them and pit them together in a single story of its own. Superhero comics has been one of the main founders of this concept, with the two biggest brands having all-stars ensembles in the "Justice League" and "The Avengers". In the animation world, this has inevitably come up whenever cartoon production companies gain enough of a back catalog to portray them as like a family. Disney did this with many of the different television productions starting in the 50s, albeit on a somewhat toned down scale. Then came full series with this base idea, like Hanna-Barbera's "Laff-a-Lympics". On rare occasions, multiple companies would even combine their properties together to promote a special cause, most infamously seen in "Cartoon All-Stars To The Rescue".
Of course, the crown jewel of all cartoon crossovers was 1988's "Who Framed Roger Rabbit". A passionate tribute to the golden age of theatrical cartoons, a noir murder mystery with a simple but really fun twist, and a clever allegory to real life prejudice of the time. It all came together so incredibly well, from Robert Zemeckis' smart direction, to Richard Williams' mastery in how seamlessly the animation is integrated, and superb acting from actors like Bob Hoskins and Christopher Lloyd. The crossover aspect was just the icing on the cake, with the inclusion of characters like Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck, and Betty Boop only adding to the world they live in. They aren't just there for the novelty of sharing the screen together (which was indeed mind-blowing for the time), they are crucial to the plot and world-building. They go through great lengths to contrast what life is like for a toon verses that of humanity, while still making the implications feel somewhat realistic. Not only did the team's love for the medium shine as bright as the Sun, but the story and cast had enough strength on their own that it proved far greater than a mere spectacle.
With cable networks forming iconic lineages of their own, inner-company crossovers would become much more commonplace by the 2000s. One popular example is the "Jimmy-Timmy Pour Hour" trilogy, especially fascinating in how it blended the 2D comic-styled "Fairly Oddparents" and the 3D stylized "Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius", even if the results ultimately varied in quality. The tail end of "Lilo and Stitch: The Series" was stuffed with episodes featuring other Disney Channel animated stars visiting Hawaii, including a few that had long ended their actual runs. However, sometimes this can even expand to the very concept of the show itself - case in point, "House of Mouse". Much of the show was repurposing cartoons that were made for the then-recent series "Mickey Mouseworks", but with new wraparounds of the legacy cast hosting a nightclub featuring every Disney feature animation star under the sun. A gimmicky, somewhat surface-level novelty, but one that got many kids' attention back in the day. And while this wasn't quite as common in film at that point, we still had a "Rugrats Go Wild" on the rare occasion.
By the mid-to-late 2010s, however, merely crossing over within your own brand wasn't enough anymore. "The Lego Movie", being based off an illustrious toy brand, included Lego characters based off not just Warner-owned brands like DC superheroes, but other big names like Star Wars and even the NBA, among many others that were given glorified cameos. Briefly switching over to video games, this was around the same time the popular "Super Smash Bros" series went much further into including characters into its roster outside of Nintendo itself, notably the long-dormant Mega Man, Cloud from Final Fantasy, and Bayonetta from the game of the same name - a trend that only became thrice as true come Ultimate years later. Then you have examples like "Space Jam 2", which apart from the obvious Looney Tunes and NBA connection that take up the bulk of the plot, there is a heavy amount of focus from cameos of other WarnerMedia brands, particularly during the climax where they populate the audience.
Then you have a few projects that enter their own bizarre league entirely, most recently the "Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers" movie. On the bare surface, it may look similar to "Roger Rabbit" where cartoons and humans co-inhabit the world, but unlike that film which took itself seriously, this one is meant as more a tongue-in-cheek commentary on trends in modern Hollywood entertainment; from CG re-treads, to lame, hip reboots of classic properties, and even the infamous world of motion capture. In general, you can tell it being produced for Disney+ rather than theaters put it in a weird position budget-wise; notably, they don't go through quite the same effort to be as authentic with its references and art styles (most jarring with Chip, animated using cel-shaded 3D despite the point of his position of him remaining a hand-drawn character), and there's a wide, almost jarring mix of different techniques on display - made even more so by the shocking number of outside companies that allowed cameos littered across the film, from "My Little Pony" to freaking "South Park".
Naturally, a film of this breed has sparked so much polarizing discussion amongst animation fans and even animation crew members alike. It's not a new discussion - it comes up in some capacity every time a mega-crossover film comes up these days - but "Rescue Rangers" being in a sort of camp by itself has made the conversation veer into all sorts of directions. Some believe it's dumb but enjoyable fun, if surprisingly semi-thoughtful in places; others saw it as a shallow wankfest that doesn't respect the medium enough to give it proper justice. Plus, despite how much it deliberately chooses to mock a lot of the bad symptoms of lame cash-grab reboots and remakes, the film can occasionally feel like it stumbles into a few of the same traps itself, largely in the 'meta' approach they take within the context of the original "Rescue Rangers" series. Altogether, while the film has its own unique ambitions, it became hard for some people to escape the vibe they got in certain scenes or decisions.
The reasons for increasing pessimism for these among the public are really easy to detect, and ones I'm sure most of you share on some level. Corporate buyouts have led to a concerning degree of consolidation in the entertainment world; the majority of mainstream media stems from only a handful of corporate bodies which include Comcast, Warner Bros Discovery, and Disney. Because of this, many IPs made by a variety of studios are now placed alongside each other in a way that just feels wrong on the face of it. It makes any corporate attempt to draw attention to this, particularly in having them cross over in some form, seem really business-focused and even somewhat braggy. Like, they are eager to show off what they own, and this mentality has essentially been more enabled than ever before. Granted, these types of projects usually aren't as substantial as full feature films, but they're still there. Doesn't help either that it's all too common for the internet to get overhyped by the slightest of cameos, as long as they're obscure and recognizable enough.
In addition, there have been many other reasonable criticisms that can and have been made towards these modern multiverse-type projects. While very few people have problem with fanservice in and of itself, many believe that because a lot of the time these cameos are effectively used as one-and-done jokes where they do their usual shtick then leave, that the fanservice is essentially being used as a substitute for actual humor and any other productive utility. In the worse instances, these cameos run the risk of potentially misrepresenting the brand in some capacity. Many have argued the upcoming "Multiversus" has done so with the Iron Giant, as well as the same game getting a little over meme-y at times like with Super Saiyan Shaggy. It really doesn't help that in an age where people would rather rely on tried-and-true IPs over taking a chance on anything with more creative integrity, even if it could end up becoming a new classic itself, seeing them basically use this concept to its extreme is sure to push some buttons.
That said... while these reactions are definitely justified to a degree, there's been a lot of stupid overreactions that come as the result of fans' lack of critical thinking. There's a very nasty habit of conflating the creative teams who bring all this media to life with the studio heads themselves when convenient; as in, with something like "The Owl House", it's obvious that everything people love about the show is purely from the creatives and in spite of what those up top at corporate would probably prefer. But when the aforementioned "Chip n Dale" film draws attention (even if by accident) to how the young actor Bobby Driscoll was treated with their original "Peter Pan" film, suddenly it gets seen as Disney - as in the company - taking a mean shot at the guy, implying corporate suits wrote the movie (let alone any who'd be involved over decisions from 70 years ago). Not to mention how much the far-right loves to label LGBTQ+-friendly content is of "Disney/Netflix/whoever getting woke!" despite it being really documented how much corporate bodies try to hold back on diversity for the sake of not alienating anyone they can profit off.
There's also the problem when certain media is put on unreasonable pedestals. Sometimes it's the fault of how the media initially presented itself, sometimes it's just overhype from those who watched it. If a story were to resonate with someone on a very personal level, or if they're just an excitable kind of person, you're going to get them calling a film or show they just watched the greatest thing ever. Nothing wrong with them doing so, but it can make it easy for people to go into "Chip n Dale" unironically expecting it to be on par with "Roger Rabbit" despite it having nowhere near the budget or craft. And of course, the more you become aware of tropes, cliches, and just how media works in general, the easier it gets to become plain jaded and act like nothing can pleasantly surprise you anymore. This is what leads people down that good ol' trap of nostalgia where you glorify what you grew up with while being quick to judge anything new. Even if you don't necessarily hate everything new, a bias can still exist subconsciously if you aren't careful.
What people seem to misunderstand when making these complaints is, as special as movie-making should be, and as cynical as some cash-grabs can get, sometimes filmmakers and creative talents are allowed to just have dumb fun every once in a while. "Teen Titans Go!" isn't a particularly intelligent show, and it did start by somewhat cheaply falling back on an established brand, but when it comes to the show itself it's very evident that for the most part it's the result of the crew just having a fun time thinking this stuff up while still having enough professionalism to competently put it all together. This was especially reflected when they made their theatrical film in 2018, which ended up better received critically than most of DC's big-name films at that time. When you get down to it, all popular media is inherently made to profit off the masses, so judging the worth of something purely off that lens is questionable at best. That's not to say some films aren't more corporate manufactured than others, but it shouldn't be the end all, be all of its perceived quality.
Of course, you could say this is all little more than a matter of opinion. Some people have far less of a tolerance for projects born from a somewhat corporate-looking or less-than-original visions than others, especially if you're someone who has been in entertainment and have had original content you've worked on get shafted for stupid reasons. On another note, some people want to get more stimulating experiences out of what they consume while others just like being able to shut their brain off sometimes. These kinds of extremes aren't necessarily about being picky or a corporate enabler, so much as following certain beliefs when it comes to mass-appeal entertainment. It's very easy to blame 'normies' for holding the industry back and eating up the lazy garbage, or the snobs for insisting on keeping everything serious, but people are generally smarter than that and have valid reasons for enjoying what they do, even if you personally can't relate to those reasons yourself.
In the end, what I'm getting at is: if you're sick and tired of how much the consolidated corporate system has made the once-fantastical concept of the multiverse seem tired and even boring, you are completely fine to feel that way so long as you aren't considering every project of this sort creatively bankrupt and attacking those who get enjoyment out of them. I'll fully admit to enjoying "Space Jam 2" fine despite how much of an obvious commercial with mediocre writing it was because not only did I find it really pleasant to look at, but the Looney Tunes themselves were just charming enough to make it worth the watch. On the flip side, it's okay to think many of these are being done without grace and intruding on the escapism of consuming this media. I can't stand when Disney makes "The Simpsons" directly tie in to their other owned properties (generally through shorts) because it was such a big buy for the company that most everyone agrees wasn't deserved, on top of usually feeling plain cheap when they do so.
But at the end of the day, I acknowledge that this is simply part of running a business. Sure, I do wish companies approach these ideas with more artistic tact, and that more crossovers stem from a creative-driven mentality. However, it's important to not only understand to what extent a project of this nature actually is corporate-driven, but also that they have a clear reason to exist - even if it isn't one that you personally agree with. It's easy to get soured by a "Ralph Breaks The Internet" here and there, but it doesn't have to all be bad, especially if you view each individual entry through a properly balanced lens.