I now want to mention programs made by musicians or musical-themed shows. I mean shows like The Wiggles and the direct-to-video collections of educational songs from They Might Be Giants. What do you think of them?
I know that there are other shows of the same genre like The Doodlebops, Imagination Movers, and The Fresh Beat Band, but I am not too familiar with them to make a judgement.
I personally like them very much. The Wiggles in general make really memorable songs (though I lot track of them when three of the four lead singers left and were replaced). Even the shows are fun to watch. They have a great upbeat style with equally great messages (considering how Greg Page is a vegetarian). They Might Be Giants has an exquisite sound track teaching the alphabet (Flying V, Q & U, LMNO, C Is for Conifers, D Is for Drums) and numbers (My Hero Zero is enough to dignify).
What do you think of them and other programs of the same genre? Are they good or bad? If bad, what is wrong?
There was a network called LBC (Lebanese Broadcasting Channel) which broadcast a host of live-action shows. The most notable to me, which I recorded on videocassette, was called Bla Bla Bla. It featured a cast of a handful of adults and puppets (human disguises) engaging with children in Arabic, French, and English. I would probably call it a fusion of Sesame Street and Barney and Friends.
I think that I know where the videocassettes containing them are (which also contain 1990's Arabic music videos, Arabic dubs of Japanese cartoons like both the 1972 and 1992 versions of Calimero, and episodes of Baqqar on Future TV), but retrieving them will take some time. I also need a plug for converting from videocassettes to digital files (I have a VCR).
Well, when you say "bad", it depends on if you mean bad in general or just bad for young children.
I'm about to throw all my respectability out the window by saying that when I watched the first episode of The Problem Solverz, I found myself enjoying it and really didn't see what was so bad about it. Then I read a scathing review and it hit me - I liked it because I was watching it from the perspective that I watch Adult Swim from. People are absolutely right in saying that it has nothing of value for children. That doesn't make it a bad show in my eyes, it just makes it a bad *kid's* show. And it also makes me wonder why they didn't just keep it as an Adult Swim show like it was meant to be in the first place.
As you guys mentioned, age of the children is also a factor. If your kids are too young when you show them a blaring obnoxious show, your kids will think it's funny and become obnoxious themselves, and who wants to deal with a bunch of twerps who won't shut the hell up? But once kids are mature enough to distinguish the difference between TV and reality, screw it, let's watch some blaring obnoxious bullshit together and laugh like idiots.
On the case of Substance Over Style, I remember being a kid and watching Liberty's Kids. I watched it for the funny Checkers commercials and spaced out during the actual show. I remember checking out Book Of Virtues tapes from my church's library and finding the packaging more interesting than the show itself. And that's why I voted for that - if your show makes its target audience want to fall asleep, it's failed. End of story. You'd be better off reading a book.
When I say "bad," I mean according to what you think of it-- so bad in general.
I mentioned this in my thread about adult twists on childhood favourites, but I personally think that the definition of a children cartoon versus that of an adult cartoon is by the intentions of the creator. I am pretty sure that The Problem Solverz was intended to be an adult cartoon (rumour has it that it was removed for being too cute), but I am not too sure (although I am aware that the creator does make adult animation and has gone forwards to make a show called Stone Quackers). On another note, I am analysing Adult Swim's first four shows and shall share my thoughts in a new thread eventually. I am digressing, though.
I said that I meant "bad in general," so shows that may hold no value for children, including those with that target audience, may hold value for adults. You may have heard the expression, "One man's dumpster is another man's castle." (If not, then the saying is similar.) There is at the very least somebody seeing value in a show almost unanimously bad (think Full English, but I personally do not want to know if it has value for me), which is why I am referring to any reader's opinion specifically.
My problem with connecting this question to shows with certificates stricter than TV-Y is because of the vastly different content within different shows of the same category that may alter children's behaviours differently-- not to mention that they my have outside influences that are far more vulgar with strong effects on them. It is hard to explain why I focus on TV-Y specifically, and I do not think that I did it properly. I hope that you understand, though.
Your defence of style over substance makes sense, by the way. However, it depends on who you are to enjoy a show like that, regardless of how you act. Do you like Teletubbies (a show in the category), by the way? I would give other examples, but it is hard to connect shows rated TV-Y that seem to fit this category to the discussion at hand since these shows may define substance differently.
I agree with you about the majority of bad substance-over-style shows being boring, too. I wish that I could say more, but I am having trouble thinking of things to say.
I would assume that it is because there is not a proper definition of what literature should be included. Passion projects (like essays that you my have written at a younger age) may have to be included in the definitions, and imagine what would happen if that came into play.
There's a HUGE, HUGE difference between a novel by a famous writer that was never finished, such as F Scott Fitzgerald's The Love of the Last Tycoon, or the early drafts of Ernest Hemingway's works which were stolen, or Homer's first epic poem which is lost to time, and "passion projects" by some nobody on the internet. To even compare them is an insult. Just because we open up the domain of books/text to write articles for does not mean that suddenly every text by every human who ever lived must get an article. Lost video and audio are currently covered by this wiki, yet every garage band's first "lost" recordings are not written up as articles on here--and for good reason. With all due respect, Im not sure how this is a valid argument to not include texts on the wiki. I enjoy, and see the merit in saving, some cartoon shorts like Clock Man as much as anyone. But the lost works of Shakespeare (Cardenio) and the Bible (Book of the Battles of Yahweh being just one example) are far more deserving to be included on here. There are works from some of the greatest minds in history and/or associated with cultural traditions which formed the basis of storytelling itself (the Bible and Homer are the bedrock of Western literary tradition). It's completely asinine to dismiss them based on some vague hypothetical where irrelevant articles might be created as well.
Sorry about that. You are right.
I must have been "overly rationalising" again. I do that far too often and am trying to stop it.
The simpsons made their show PG for a while, and it sorta crossed the border for PG at the time.
It seems to be more of an adult cartoon, though, even with the episodes being produced now. Actually defining an adult cartoon can be a challenge. I choose my definitions by considering the original target audience, and I am pretty sure that The Simpsons is considered for adults considering the other animations that the members of the staff have done beforehand. (You look to see what I mean, because I prefer not to give examples-- although I have seen some of them.)
Here in Egypt, The Simpsons is rated PG-15, by the way.
Despite my definition of an adult cartoon, some examples that I listed in the original post (those being Crayon Shin-chan, Mr BaBy, and Total Drama) are already considered adult-orientated by some.
I would assume that it is because there is not a proper definition of what literature should be included. Passion projects (like essays that you my have written at a younger age) may have to be included in the definitions, and imagine what would happen if that came into play.
I honestly hate Teen Titans Go, I tried watching it because I loved original Teen Titans as a kid, and watching ttg - never mind that
But seriously, it's pretty weird.
There is something that I learned from experience:
Whenever you show that you are annoyed by somebody's antics, that person will continue to use those antics to annoy you. On another note, when you think about something or feel something, it will become attracted to you whether you want it or not. The point is to ignore the negative and embrace the positive.
My point is: if you hate it so much, why do you bother to talk about it? (For your sake, I will not give my thoughts on the show.)
As for it being a children's show, I do not know what to say to that. Some might argue against it being rated TV-PG in its home country. Others might argue about its inappropriate content. I would respond to the argument of it having sexual content, but after watching the 1995 Arabic dub of Doraemon, I do not know what to say anymore.
Honestly, I think it's all about execution. Looking at the old Nicktoons I grew up with, Id say Ren and Stimpy was very much style over substance, Rugrats would be the opposite, Rocko had a good mix of both. All are amazing, but for different reasons. John K was an avid animation buff who brought back the detailed theatrical style and made cartoons zany and fun again like they were supposed to be. Rugrats had amazing characters and genuinely touching or thought-provoking stories (in the first 3 seasons.) Rocko had a unique animation style and identity and that wacky humor, but it was grounded in more stable characters and had them grow and develop over time--Filbert being the best example. I think these days we're seeing the extremes of both ends. You've got stuff like Adventure Time, Bojack and Stephen Universe which excel in style AND substance, but you also have Breadwinners and all the other crap on Nickelodeon nowadays which have neither.
You seem to be talking more about younger kids based on the examples you gave. Id say obviously substance is more important. That's what will teach them things, make them feel things, and keep them as fans into adulthood. Style has importance in that a stylized show or animation design could grab their attention better. But it should always be a means to an end, not an end in itself as substance is.
There's a reason "style over substance" is a popular criticism but not the reverse.
Having execution in mind, that was why I referred to bad children's shows.
I actually considered mentioning shows from "modern Nickelodeon" but decided against it because...even though people may ignore certificates like TV-Y7, younger children may be watching, so I decided to focus on shows rated TV-Y (and even then I have some questionable choices, with one in particular that I want to give a full-length review alongside many other shows in the future: Zig and Sharko).
I made this poll because I have come across so many sources regarding the children's shows that people utterly loathe. Now I have an example of a show with substance over style: Little Einsteins. People hate it for being a show that acts too much like a college course and not a cartoon for children. While more extreme compared to other shows in the category, it does give an impression for the other shows. Again, I mentioned Jumpstart Kindergarten: Why Did the Bus Stop? earlier. (I will save an explanation for the review.) I can excuse this if it is works best as a lecture-styled program (like Bill Nye the Science Guy), but these examples ought to develop a style that is at the very least passable.
You would not believe the hate that shows balancing style and substance receive, most notably Caillou and Peppa Pig. Watch the worthless rock be grounded for many millennia, or watch the outrageous swine eat bacon (these are popular fan works, the former being seemingly more recognisable). Note that their executions are botched to the annoyance of plenty of viewers.
Dora the Explorer is...I really do not know.
I already made my point about style over substance.
Before I make my final point, I admit that there are shows of the same demographic that really work, most notably Sesame Street. I also mentioned Bill Nye the Science Guy, and while I have not seen it yet but shall do so very soon, I have a feeling that Pee Wee's Playhouse is another worthy candidate. Keep in mind that there are plenty of examples of good shows to watch, but I will leave it to readers to decide now.
My last point is this: note that while plenty of people, possibly including you, may hate these shows, they have been beloved by children all around us to some extent. (However, I would like to know-- do people still cherish shows like Teletubbies as adults? I know that they may cherish shows from the other two categories, but what about this one?)
I personally think that it is not "animation." It is more about audio, if you ask me. I know why it would be considered animation, though, since it undergoes video edits. Move them to Lost Audio.
When I heard about the comparison of style and substance, I realised how it could be applied to children's shows, especially ones that receive plenty of hate. I also want to know your thoughts in the poll.
Before you vote, I will explain what each answer represents.
Some shows can have too much style and no substance, meaning that little to no beneficial value, most notably education, is present in a show that endlessly attempts to appeal to children with something like crazy antics or gross-out. Teletubbies, which to me is pure unadulterated nonsense although I am open to objections, is the most notable example for me in this category.
Some shows can have too much substance and not enough style. Did you notice my post about a New Year's present for Reynard and friends? There, I mentioned a plan for a full-length review on what I thought bout the direct-to-video Jumpstart cartoons (I will have much more to say about Jumpstart Kindergarten: Why Did the Bus Stop?). I still want to make one, but let me say now that Jumpstart's biggest flaw in the videos (without bringing up the painful animation) is sacrificing storytelling and character depth for education. Since it is hard to find (other than the music videos nothing is online due to copyright though I have taken a few photographs of the cartoon and may upload them in my review once I learn how to do so on this website), I will give a more relatable example: Dora the Explorer. It speaks for itself, although I must note that this one seems more "up for debate" since most of the show is merely helping a girl getting to where she needs to go (or playing with gadgets, depending on whatever suits you well).
Finally, we have shows like Caillou and Peppa Pig-- shows that have actually found a balance but still suffer from numerous other flaws. Caillou teaches real-world concepts and even has character development, as expressed through its theme song. As dull as it may be, I would have actually enjoyed it had it not been for Caillou's horrible behaviour. Peppa Pig is one of the most incompetent cartoons that I have seen (which is not saying much, though) and deserves a full-length review to examine its flaws. If you are wondering, I do not hate it and even have fun watching how hilariously pathetic it is.
What children's shows do you hate, and in what category would they fit? Vote on the poll and give your own thoughts below.
A lot of recent "forgotten" cartoons are probably stuff that just plain sucked so no one really watched and it was quickly pulled. I'm talking Butt Ugly Martians and that kinda thing. It was on enough to be noticed as bad, but not long enough to be reviled. So it just ended unceremoniously, faded into obscurity, and now no one talks about it anymore as it slowly fades from our collective memory. The vast majority of forgotten stuff deserves to be forgotten, in my experience. That said, every now and then you find a hidden gem. I search for older 60s albums, and while a lot of the rarer stuff is interesting and there's maybe a song or two I really like, a lot of the obscure stuff got that way for a reason. But then again, there's always that one buried gem which makes it all worth it.
That sounds about right, now that I think about it. I am not sure if Bla Bla Bla (what must be a forgotten show and definitely lost media at that) was as good as I remember it to be, but I will know once I find my recordings of it and watch it.
I love the way Steven Universe throws in subtle LGBT subtext. Nothing over the top, nothing that's there for the sake of being there. Im talking about stuff that serves the purpose of the story yet works on that other level. Anyone watching who's homosexual or trans knows what Im saying.
It's amazing the kind of stuff Rocko's Modern Life was able to get away with.
Pinky and the Brain is DEFINITELY more of an adult show than a kids show.
Gravity Falls has a lot of interesting concepts, like loss and regret, which resonate more for older viewers.
Rugrats is a surreal work of art if we're just talking about the first 3 seasons.
It could be real, but you never really know. For example, I remember the Spaghetti-O cartoon and have no doubt of it being a misconception. Lost media is weird like that.
For the record, I am trying to keep track of just about every Teletoon show, especially for this particular topic. I have seen neither Gerald McBoing-Boing (2005) nor Planet Sketch but recognise them by name and will likely watch them in the future.
By the way, which Teletoon shows do you like and hate? I need to watch many more shows to make a judgement. (I covered most of the initial releases of 1997, and afterwards it is just by mere interest. Most of the shows either sound awful or uninteresting or were things I left aside and never bothered to visit.)
I appreciate the replies and honestly hope to see people that have more to say than just "Johnny Test makes me angry to look at it! I see it every day as a pandering..." (That was just a summary of the majority of people that discuss Teletoon.) All opinions are welcome, and I am curious to hear your thoughts.
I keep thinking about making a cartoon but am very divisive on how to take it.
I often think about deconstructing characters from children's cartoons.
I seem to have a knack for deconstructing them, alongside giving legitimate reasons as to why and how it can appeal to adults even on its own (also note that I am referring to the Arabic world in terms of these ideas actually working).
Right now, I am looking through the Jumpstart computer game franchise and getting ideas for making it work as an adult cartoon. (I am basing it mainly off the products of the 1990's, especially the direct-to-video cartoons that you cherish.)
Other cartoons that seem to work on their own as adult-orientated instead of child-friendly include:
The New Adventures of Lucky Luke: Eccentric and political
Mr BaBy: Explicit with its adult humour
Zig & Sharko: Quite incompetent
Peppa Pig: Even more incompetent, could work better if it included more Biting-the-Hand humour like [adult swim]
Doraemon (uncut): Enough said
Crayon Shin-Chan: Because it is Crayon Shin-Chan
Total Drama (uncut): Seems appropriate to label it PG-15 in the Arabic world considering how "real" it is
What kinds of adult twists would you want to put on child-friendly products? Also, which child-friendly products seem more adult-orientated? Please attack me with the "It's for Kids" excuse below.