Style vs. Substance in Bad Children's Shows

Jan 3, 2017 16:29:44 GMT theCarbonFreeze said:

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?)

Jan 3, 2017 20:39:43 GMT Lucy said:

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.