Is dumbing down a cartoon really neccisery to get kids to watch it?

[I.R Joey]

Networks today seem to have this idea that dumbing down cartoons will get kids to watch them, but I see that often times it works in reverse. Remember Pinky and the Brain transforming into Pinky Elmyra and The Brain, that totally killed the ratings of the show. Before hand it was in Primetime remember. But then their are the action shows, from my observations kids today want to see moreintense fighting, and cooler more frighning villans, but the networks won't allow it. Why? You have to know where the kids are at.


Educational stuff: Animaniacs did a good job with the whole educational thing, the catchy songs and stuff actually fit in. I mean seriously how many of you knew that lake Titicaca was between Bolivia and Peru before that? I'm sure their are many children who do now. We need to take our lessons from the writers of Animaniacs, you slip medicine in with the sweets, not by itself.

Anyway who agree's, that it would actually be helpful to the networks to do this.

[James Harvey]

I don't this it's necessary at all to dumb down cartoons. Agina, look at Rougnecks or Batman. Totally mature and sphisicated stuff. It's the execs who don't give kids any credits. Then again, there the lousy school system which may influence some of their dscisions...but anyways, I don't think it is.

[Calhoun07]

Originally posted by DickGrayson
I don't this it's necessary at all to dumb down cartoons. Agina, look at Rougnecks or Batman. Totally mature and sphisicated stuff. It's the execs who don't give kids any credits. Then again, there the lousy school system which may influence some of their dscisions...but anyways, I don't think it is.

Then was is it, Dick? I see Joey's point here. Even good animation such as Batman, eventually had to succumb to stricter rules of censorship, and thus could be seen as being dumbed down. The second Batman series wasn't quite as effective as the first series, and Batman Beyond was totally watered down in terms of what they could or could not do. I don't know if "dumbing" it down is the best term to use, but what else do you call tailoring the shows to appeal to the lowest age demographic possible?

[James Harvey]

By dumbed down I asuming they mean the simple plots and horrible chaarcters. I don't think either of that hapened to BATMAN or BATMAN BEYOND. The 'TNBA' run of BATAMN was violent and had great stories, and didn't succumb to censors. BB, on the other hand, might have succumbed to censors, but we may never know. When dumbed down, I mean POKEMON dumb. Episodes with no plot whatsoever. Batman, Superman, and Batman Beyond were almost always rich in plot and characters. I think 'dumbed down' doesn't fit this.

[Calhoun07]

I've always thought that whenever they went for the lowest age demographic possible, they were dumbing down the animation. Of course, that's what they were doing when they changed Pinky and the Brain.

A agree with Joey that there is never a good reason to do this. I wonder if sometimes networks want to get rid of shows, but can't do anything because of a contract, so they force bad things into the cartoon to drive away viewers so they can get away with cancelling it without breaking the contract? I don't know if that's always the case, but sometimes I wonder.

[James Harvey]

I don't think there's a conspiracy out to cancel shows. I wonder why people thing that networks are deliberatly making shows suck. Yes, the networks occasionally do ask for a change in the show that eventually ruins it, but why does everyone think they do it delibaratly. They do it to get more money and reach as many demographics as possible, all becuase of the ever mighty dollar. Why ruin a show that makes money. And that "becuase it's to popular" excuse is totally bunk, so that won't work.

[Calhoun07]

Who knows why these things happen. But there have been instances in the past where TV shows got the can because of conflicts in politics with the creative people on the TV show and with the network execs. I know it isn't animated, but CBS got rid of the Jeffersons abruptly even while it was making good ratings because of internal issues.

I am not tyring to introduce a Lone Gunmen type conspiracy theory here, but just pointing out that there are times, tho perhaps not in every case, where TV shows get changed for reasons other than monetary.

If the execs over these cartoon shows think that by making these changes they will some how get more money out of their product, then why don't they pay attention to the previous models that followed similar tactics and failed miserably? Why are they constantly running into the same ground? I guess we will never really know the answer to that, unless we get behind the scenes our selves!

[I.R Joey]

Okay we all agree that it isn't neccicery right, and that sophisticated ploting, and taking the high road can work right? We all have our examples of kid's shows that completly missed their demographic not by stooping low, but by taking to the air in their deapth, wit, dramatic feel, or innovation. So if this is all true why in the world would the Networks not want to follow these paths. Instead they try to change things to formats which have failed in the past. It's like the old saying.


"Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it."

Someone tell these network people that.

[I.R Joey]

Okay we all agree that it isn't neccicery right, and that sophisticated ploting, and taking the high road can work right? We all have our examples of kid's shows that completly missed their demographic not by stooping low, but by taking to the air in their deapth, wit, dramatic feel, or innovation. So if this is all true why in the world would the Networks not want to follow these paths. Instead they try to change things to formats which have failed in the past. It's like the old saying.


"Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it."

Someone tell these network people that, there's your endutainment.

BTW. Nice dialouge you guys, but Dick you need the old Avatar man. Stop the madness.

[Inque]

sometimes it backfires. if they dumben down a cartoon too much, i'll just stop watching it

[James Harvey]

I'm happy with my DG pic avatars. I think that the dumbing down will always be evential. I find this to almost be a cycle. Every few years, we're witness to something in animation that totally changes it. SO naturally, people try to copy it and we end up with junk, and around and around that trend goes.

[I.R Joey]

Every few years, we're witness to something in animation that totally changes it. SO naturally, people try to copy it and we end up with junk, and around and around that trend goes.

So basically what you're saying is that they're trying to repeat the experiment that led to a breakthrough, but without the spirit of innovation that led the first to its success. That is very true when it comes to animation. As for the theory on networks wanting to kill shows, I think Calhoun may be on to something. There "is" only so much space, and when a network (say KWB for the sake of the discussion) wants to push something new (Static Shock or X-Men Evolution) or push something that is already a proven ratings winner (Pokemon) they may descide to make changes that will lead to a shows being dumbed down.

[Calhoun07]

Originally posted by DickGrayson
I'm happy with my DG pic avatars. I think that the dumbing down will always be evential. I find this to almost be a cycle. Every few years, we're witness to something in animation that totally changes it. SO naturally, people try to copy it and we end up with junk, and around and around that trend goes.

I forgot about that. I suppose this means we will be seeing a flood of cheap Shrek rip offs in the coming months!

[I.R Joey]

I forgot about that. I suppose this means we will be seeing a flood of cheap Shrek rip offs in the coming months!

I would not be at all suprised at that.