Nickelodeon (keeps losing) needs to change their network fast - IMDb

[TMC]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0972534/board/flat/207925631?p=1

Ratings have been horrible for Nick and it's not going to get any
better with the direction they're going. The first thing they need to
do is to focus on making good original cartoons. If you look back at
the 90's and early 00's all of the cartoons on Nick were original and
were really popular. If they did that today and focused on making
great shows like Phineas and Ferb on Disney Channel they would be back
on top. They're not going to get by much longer by playing Spongebob,
and unoriginal shows like Kung Fu Panda and TMNT are not strong enough
to take Spongebob's spot as rating's king. They also need to
completely reevaluate their sitcoms. Marvin Marvin is absolutely
terrible and should be cancelled immediately. Sam and Kat also
probably won't be that successful. iCarly and Victorious were both
having declining ratings and I feel like it's just going to get worse
with a show about characters from both shows. Nick would be better of
with having shows about normal kids like Kenan and Kel or Drake and
Josh. The shows about being famous need to stop if Nick really wants
to comeback on top.




I agree 100% about the cartoons.

As far as the live-action sitcoms go...

What Nick needs to do is hire (allow) a more diverse pool of
experienced showrunners like Disney does. This is one of the main
reasons they are in decline. They rely too much on Dan Schneider, and
Scott Fellows. Disney, on the other hand, has a varied pool of
experienced showrunners who have done major network hits and not just
kids shows like Dan and Scott have focused on their entire careers.
This might seem ironic since this is a kids network, but that is part
of the irony. Nick needs to grow its audience beyond just kids like
Disney has always done and is doing now more than ever.

The current Disney shows like "Austin & Ally" and "Jessie" are still
escapist fare, but the stories they tell a.k.a. the content is very
"adult" and universal.

This is why Disney is not only winning their demographic, but gaining
new viewers as well. Nick is still being "childish" in terms of its
content e.g. "Marvin, Marvin" and they can't compete in this new post-
music-era when Disney has (once again) shifted the focus back to
universally appealing entertainment that targets everybody and not
just one specific demographic anymore...



I disagree about the cartoons. Cartoons are the one area where Nick
isn't completely floundering. TMNT, Kung Fu Panda, and especially The
Legend of Korra have been doing very well. No reason for them to try
to tail Disney and make a P&F type show when what they're doing is
unique and comparatively successful as is.

And Spongebob is still their biggest success, they have bloody
Spongebob reruns that end up 1st in the demographic. It's mind-
boggling to behold but there's no messing with the facts, they have to
keep playing Spongebob. I don't like it, nobody else I know likes it,
but there's no way around it.

One thing they need to start doing is actually *beep* replaying Korra
though. How do you spend a million dollars per episode and only air it
on Nickelodeon once?? How do you have a hit show and then act like it
never existed?? How is Korra supposed to win new viewers when nobody
who starts watching Nickelodeon right now would have any idea the dang
show exists? Playing it for a minuscule fraction of Nick viewers on
Nicktoons doesn't make good business sense in any universe.

As far as the rest of the station, I agree, everything (else) they do
is completely messed up. But they're too far gone at this point,
they've shown time and time again that they have absolutely no idea
what they're doing. I've long since given up hope. Like the dinosaurs,
they're invariably heading for extinction and all we can do is hope
that something better evolves in their place once they're gone. It
would take a lot for me to regain faith in Nick again.

It'd be a lot easier for me to keep faith in Nick if Disney wasn't
utterly knocking it out of the park every single chance they get with
some of the best TV that TV has ever seen. But hey, when your
competitors bring out the big guns, you have to sink or swim.

Sucks for Nick but they were the best damn kids station for over 20
years. And the sickest part is, it's not that Disney had better shows.
I adore Austin & Ally, Jessie, Gravity Falls, etc. But are they better
than The Legend of Korra, iCarly season 2&3, or Victorious season 1&2?
Nope. Nick found a way to kill itself through sheer lack of business
sense, something that a 30 year old network should have had at least a
vague inkling of.

It's actually pretty impressive, I'm not convinced that Viacom's CEO
didn't lose a bet to Disney and had to intentionally sabotage Nick out
of existence. Either that or some form of nepotism or favoritism has
ruined the network because by all means Viacom should have fired damn
near everybody involved with the business end of the station a year
ago. And cancelling all their shows doesn't count... Viacom sweetie,
you can't get good ratings with new shows when your promotion,
scheduling, and brand departments are all broken beyond repair.
They're just throwing ice cubes at the sun, they don't even seem to
know what the problem is. But we all do. How sad is that?



SpongeBob only cleans up Saturday morning because the broadcast
networks no longer air Saturday morning cartoons. This is why SB is
#1... One day of the week... But this is what the execs use as the
primary excuse to keep the status quo and not do a damn thing to
change, or even build on its lead.

The over-reliance on Dan Schneider doesn't help, either.

The problem with Dan's shows is they are a self-fulfilling prophecy
that always works in his favor. If a non-Danwarp show fails, the Nick
execs panic and cancel it, and/or replace it with reruns of Dan's
latest so-called hit.

This is something that has to fundamentally change within the ranks at
Nick, Viacom.

We read all these press releases where they say they have 1000s of
hours of new content, but what do we see on the actual channel week
after week? The same stuff (SB, Victorious, BTR and the former
iCarly). Where is this supposed stockpile of new animated and live-
action shows they keep touting? Like you said, if its scattered around
the different subchannels Nick has (TeenNick, NickToons, etc.) that
doesn't help because they aren't on the main channel where they can be
seen for first time viewers.

However, until the culture of "fear" changes... The execs fear of
losing their jobs, or their million dollar year-end bonuses... Nothing
is going to change until Disney buys Nick and fires all the execs who
already have Golden parachutes built into their contracts, so it won't
matter at that point most likely. Viewers lose, execs win and nothing
changes when they move to another network. How pathetic...



The fact that Nick can beat Disney at all, even just with Spongebob on
Saturday is still pretty significant, considering how few success
stories Nick has at the moment. But you're right, they should be
trying to build on it. Wroth as I am to admit it, they should be
trying to make new cartoons that appeal to Sponebob's aesthetic. Can't
really think of the last show they did that was similar in style to
Spongebob... Kung Fu Panda, TMNT, Tuff Puppy, these have all been
action-comedies and Spongebob is just pure comedy.

That being said, Nick's whole Sat morning seems to do pretty well and
has been doing well consistently. So if I was Disney I would be asking
myself what the heck is wrong with us that Nickelodeon is still
winning in one category out of a dozen, hah! (< cue Alf voice)

Nick's TV lineup is so homogeneous that it's kind of hilarious. I'm
looking at the schedule for Monday & Tuesday and it's basically
nothing but Spongebob. They're not even playing iCarly and Victorious
anymore. Sure Spongebob is big, but do they seriously expect people to
watch Spongebob literally non-stop? What makes Disney such an amazing
station for me is that they have so much variety, I can watch all day.
I practically only watch Disney and TBS now because they're
practically always playing something I like. (Keeping in mind that I
watch the shows I "seriously" follow on the computer or DVD).



Also, can't we have any live action sitcoms where are boys are smart
and funny and aren't treated like *beep* This was done on Icarly which
was the most sexist show ever and women getting away with everything
which made it bad.


This is because Nick and Disney were focused on the tween (8-11) girl
demographic the last few years after the mega-success of Hannah
Montana. That era is over... Although, Disney will always be more for
tween girls because of the Fairy Tale Princess theme... So, we will
hopefully see more balanced shows that also feature male leads that
aren't Boy Band members.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0972534/board/flat/207568435?p=1

One of the reasons Disney is doing so well right now is because they
have "grown up" and aren't just targeting tweens in particular like
Nick is doing. They are targeting young children, tweens, teens and
even older viewers (parents). Basically, anybody who will watch. It's
not rocket science, but it's a very different strategy from what Nick
is doing; Nick is still trying to beat them in one specific
demographic because this is where the advertising dollars are, but
like most things in business, trends are changing and if you don't
adapt, you perish.

Disney is appealing across demographics by letting their diverse group
of showrunners produce "grown up" shows with realistic portrayals that
don't talk down to their audience, troll their audience, or pander to
them like Dan does. Disney showrunners include those who have produced
major network hits like "The Nanny" and who bring a more adult
perspective to their shows compared to Dan and others who have done
nothing but kids shows the majority of their careers. That added
experience of not programming specifically for kids is what is giving
Disney... A network aimed at kids... The competitive edge right now,
ironically.

Kids don't want to be talked down to just because a show might feature
a talking dog, pet lizard, or a puppet that has come to life. Those
are the kid-friendly elements, but it's what the showrunners DO with
those elements that makes the current Disney shows grown up. It's what
allowed "iCarly" to appeal across age ranges and go mainstream,
ironically.

This is something so simple, but Nick just doesn't "get it" and
"Marvin, Marvin" is proof of this. It's nothing but high concept
schlock with no substance...

Compared to something like "Pair of Kings" (Disney XD) that takes
place on a fantastical island with giant monsters, dirt fairies and
other outrageous elements, but at the core is about two teenage boys
learning to respect others as well as themselves a.k.a. become real
men.

This is the kind of "grown up" approach I was referring to earlier and
it is something Nick needs to figure out real fast, or they will keep
losing this war until Disney buys them up....



It's interesting you'd bring up the 'talk down' angle since that's the
epitome of what made Dan's shows so popular in the first place. iCarly
and Victorious are more adult, less condescending, and in being so
amassed large adult followings, which I can only assume is what
spurred Disney to step up their game and put out their best, most
universal set of shows ever. Nick may fail at damn near everything
these days, but until recently Nick had a lock on the adult audience:
what with Dan's innuendop, and cartoons that are popular with adults
like Avatar and Spongebob.

Which brings me back to the puzzling foolishness that surrounds the
complete lack of Legend of Korra re-airings on Nick. Easily more
mature than anything on Disney and yet they refuse to let it amass new
viewers or have a presence on the network. But just like you said,
they've set their sights on the little kid market now. It's a cryin'
shame because for years Nickelodeon was the 'go to' station for adult-
caliber kids shows.

But I can't be too sad about it because as Nick's legacy crumbles into
dust, Disney builds something equally beautiful. I could watch Disney
pretty much 24/7 without getting bored, it's one of the best handled
networks I've ever seen, at the moment. Who knows, maybe someday they
could even put together a show on par with the intricate depth of
ATLA.



The problem with Dan's shows is he goes too far... And he knows it.

Oh, sure. He can say it is because he wants to "broaden the appeal",
but by including blatantly obvious and borderline offensive sexual
innuendo (along with creepy foot-fetish crap), that's crossing the
line and older viewers don't buy the whole "trying to broaden the
appeal" line. Like you said, Disney has/is gaining more universal
appeal without any of those things, so what is Dan's excuse?

It's ironic because while kids shows have to appeal to kids with
certain elements, they also can't be "too adult" with regard to the
content... Which is different from story... And this is where Dan goes
too far; the content.

For comparison, "ANT Farm" had a recent episode where the kids went on
a scavenger hunt and went to a store that had bottled farts from
famous historical people like Albert Einstien. That may be crude, but
it's not overtly sexual or terribly offensive... And it was pretty
funny when the joke became "Oh, the historical stench!" when the the
viles containing the historical farts broke and choked out the store

That's the difference between edgy content and Dan's so-called "clever
innuendo" -- that tries too hard to be funny and often falls short --
And why I believe Nick needs to reel Dan in with "Sam & Cat" if they
hope to grab some of that coveted audience away from Disney, and more
importantly build a new audience of both young AND older viewers like
Disney is doing...



Agree, there's a difference between appealing to a broad audience and
the stuff Schneider does. Icarly/Victorious contained his own personal
fetishes over tight-jeaned tweens in just about every episode,
especially the foot stuff. It was almost like you could hear him
breathing in the background and was a major turnoff.



You may not enjoy Dan's style personally, but at least we cannot deny
that it indeed worked exactly as he intended. Not only did it make
iCarly and Victorious Nick's biggest shows, it also raked in a far
larger adult audience than Disney's shows have. Until Nickelodeon
destroyed the network to the point that none of their shows have much
of an audience anymore.

As a girl who loves shows like Family Guy, South Park, et cetera, I
don't find anything remotely offensive about Dan's sex jokes. You may
not happen to like it, but adults love raunchy, over the line humor,
and that's why Dan's shows have become so successful with adults.

But Disney's certainly achieved an amazing plethora of excellent shows
as of late. It's a shame Disney couldn't have stepped up their game
sooner or Nick could have not murdered themselves, because then
instead of simply switching from Nick being good, to Disney being
good, we could have had two good kids stations. Sigh...




Just out of curiousity, what are some of these shows?


Jessie is definitely one, Austin & Ally and Pair of Kings (Disney
XD).

Now, of course, these shows still have kid-friendly things since they
are geared toward young viewers, but underneath all the silly &
fantastical elements there are real "adult" themes... universal
themes... Present that elevate the weekly story lines from just being
silly and forgettable to something with depth anybody at any age can
relate to.

"Pair of Kings" excels in exploring the differences between the sexes
as far as dating and relationships go because the kings are bumbling,
teenage boys trying to impress more sophisticated girls a majority of
the time. So, you get to see how both sexes view relationships with
humorous results. It doesn't matter if you are 13, or 30 because he
said/she said is universal. This is what I mean when I say a lot of
Disney shows are now "grown up" compared to Nick shows and why they
appeal to viewers beyond their intended target audience...



As a girl who loves shows like Family Guy, South Park, et cetera, I
don't find anything remotely offensive about Dan's sex jokes. You may
not happen to like it, but adults love raunchy, over the line humor,
and that's why Dan's shows have become so successful with adults.


I am not easily offended, but Dan goes overboard with some of the
stuff and doesn't know when to quit.

Disney shows (now) have innuendo, but it is subtle and they aren't
trying to shove it down your throat like Dan does. That's the
difference between the shows/styles and why I am more annoyed with
Dan's "humor" rather than offended...



Oh no, you've got to be kidding me. I'm sorry ferrisb1-1, but you
sound like a Disney Channel mark. Though I do agree with you entirely
on Nick and Dan Schneider.

But when it comes to Disney Channel shows the quality is very low. The
humor of these shows is cheap such as the ANT Farm joke you mentioned
with the historical farts. The characters of these shows are generic
and stereotypical with your gross, idiotic boy type characters to your
ditzy blonde girl types. And then of course you have the basic premise
of these shows being "teen and their family" (i.e. Jessie, Good Luck
Charlie, Dog With A Blog) or "teen trying to achieve fame and
success" (i.e. Shake It Up, ANT Farm, Austin & Ally). Now I will say
Disney XD is a step up from DC because like you said they have a more
"fantastical" element to their shows like two brothers who are kings
on a mythical island (Pair of Kings), teenage superheroes (Lab Rats),
and a kid with a talking puppet for a friend (Crash & Bernstein). But
you also say kids don't wanna be talked down to just because your show
has either a talking dog, a pet lizard, or a puppet. But isn't that
what Disney is doing?
Talking dog = Dog With A Blog
Pet lizard = Jessie
Puppet = Crash & Bernstein
But I guess that's what you meant since your examples were so
specific. I don't mean to come off rude or attacking towards you cause
again I think you're a little spot on with what you said about Nick.
It's just that what you're saying about Disney comes off a little bias
and over the top. For example, what you said about Pair of Kings. I've
been watching this show since the first season. I think the show is
funny. The thing is though is that this show has no message. They're
not exploring anything with this show other than that the two kings
are idiots and island is crazy. The show almost never has a message or
anything to say unless its one liner. As long as I've been watching,
what I've gotten from the show is that the kings are two annoyingly
self centered fools who are always keeping their guards on their toes
with their constant messing and tempering with the mythical creatures
and supernatural elements that inhabit the island and are constantly
threatening themselves, their kingdom, and the island (also the
running joke of their cousin Lanny wanting to get rid of them to take
the throne). There's no adult theme and these guys aren't smooth
talking guys that are constantly dating. They're rarely doing those
things. Like all of Disney's programs, its a joke show. The writers
focus more on the punchlines than a message or a theme of the episodes
with the exception of shows like Jessie and Good Luck Charlie that
more so try to fit some realism in their shows. I also give Shake It
Up its props for doing an episode about dyslexia early on. Now I'm not
trying to say Nick is any better in quality with those things. I'm
just saying they're pretty much one in the same and those are some
things Disney fans seem to overlook cause not everything on their
channel (as Deusexkatrina said) is a gem.

Here's what Nick's real problem is: They're too dependent on the
people they already know. They need to bring in some new people for
some new shows. We all know Dan has been there for so long too but
let's not forget about Scott Fellows who is doing Big Time Rush. He's
been doing Nick shows for almost as long as Dan with shows like Ned's
Declassified and Fairly Oddparents to even all the way back to older
Nick like 100 Deeds For Eddie McDowd, Doug, and Wienerville. And like
someone else said, David Israel is attached to Marvin Marvin and is
just coming off How To Rock. Plus this constant use of Lucas
Cruikshank. I'm not saying get rid of these people, I'm saying give
these guys a rest. Nick can't keep depending on these guys for full
line-ups. They're gonna need to bring in some new creators to try some
new things. They're too stuck in their comfort zone. And the animated
shows need help to. Too dependable on established brands like Teenage
Mutant Ninja Turtles and Dreamworks animated movies. I think a lot of
people can agree that Disney Channel definitely has one above Nick
right now with their animated shows like Phineas And Ferb and Gravity
Falls.



Well, Nick basically left How To Rock to be abandoned after the first
month, like they usually do to their non Dan Schneider shows. Just
like they did with True Jackson VP, The Troop, Just Jordan, Bucket &
Skinner, etc. From the long monthly gaps in between new episodes to
never airing repeats and ultimately yanking the show this past August
because Nick "wanted to go in a new direction". The new direction?
More iCarly spinoffs!

Clearly Nick is stuck in their glory days and wants to rely on Dan and
iCarly but that's not going to help them. They would rather have Dan
and Spongebob make up their lineup everyday if they could. This is the
main reason why I understand how Disney channel is beating them in the
ratings. On top of that, the only new shows that Nick will come up
with are awful ones which star FRED. Truly sad to see the Nickelodeon
of the 90's turn into this crap today.



Now that the tween girl, music-era is over... Nickelodeon really seems
directionless, IMO.

I discussed this on the "Victorious" board, so I won't rehash it
here...

But recent Nick projects don't seem to have any real target audience
and are trying to reel in as many as they can... But this approach is
not something that is going to work for TV that is demographically
focused.

Nick needs to figure out who they want to target specifically and then
go after them even if that means going after a broader audience like
Disney has done with universal programming that appeals to the whole
family and not just one select group...



They should've at least kept "How To Rock" and bring new shows into
the fold similar to the "Kenan & Kel", "All That", "Alex Mack" days.
They should also try a diverse daily schedule instead of airing
Spongebob 10 times a day. But of course, Nick won't listen.



Well personally, I thought How To Rock was a very bland show like
Bucket & Skinner. It was a sitcom for teenage girl/music era and like
someone said that era is (finally) coming to an end.

Another thing a lot of people aren't taking in is that Nick and Disney
have different demographics. Disney is aiming towards tweens and their
families, Nick is aiming towards teens and their families. Basically,
DC shows like Shake It Up and Good Luck Charlie are for the little
sister and the mom to watch. While Nick shows like iCarly and
Victorious are shows for the big sister and the dad to watch.

Here's the thing: With Nick, their demographic are the teens and up.
Disney's demographic are the tweens and younger. The difference is
with tweens and younger you can keep creating shows like Shake It Up,
Good Luck Charlie, and Austin & Ally because the quality doesn't
matter. Tweens just like the look, the music, and the dumb jokes. They
don't really care about the content and Disney doesn't have to worry
about the viewers critiquing the quality of their shows because the
kids don't really care about that. Whereas with Nick, their audience
(the teens and up) are more mature with the shows and actually care
for what their watching. The look, the music, and the dumb jokes only
works for half of that audience. The other half will critique the show
and will get tired of it if it keeps following the same format. Teens
are more judgmental, tweens don't really care as much.

Both demographics grow up with the channels and the shows they choose
to watch. The tweens that watch Disney Channel grow up and want
something different and that's usually how Nick has been getting their
audience. The problem is Nick is trying to cater with Disney-like
content to a teenage audience that just left a Disney era. Sure the
quality of Nick's shows are better than Disney's but it doesn't help
that Nick is trying to mimic what Disney is doing. That's what Nick
doesn't get is that their audience is older and different than
Disney's audience. Nick is afraid to upgrade their programming cause
they don't wanna lose the viewers they still have, but those viewers
will eventually move on like they all do.

If there's one thing Nick should take from Disney its that they need
to let the iCarly/Victorious audience (their current audience) move on
and prepare their channel for a new audience. Honestly, its time for
them to move past Dan and his shows. Again, that doesn't mean they
have to let go of him. They just need to bring in some new people with
some new ideas for a new era and generation of viewers.



Let's be realistic now. Not many dads watch iCarly or Victorious.
Unless their babysitting kids, I don't think that's happening.
That is realistic. If each parent had to watch one of their kids'
favorite shows with them do you think the dad would actually sit
through Disney humor than Dan Schneider's humor and genuinely laugh or
chuckle?

But their not doing that, not with making iCarly spinoffs such as "Sam
& Cat" and "Gibby" to air next year, while cancelling every other show
on their network (except for Big Time Rush). This proves they don't
really care about any other people but Dan and Spongebob.
Duh, that's why I said Nick needs learn from Disney in that area. When
Wizards of Waverly Place ended, that's when Disney Channel jumped into
this new era of shows. Though the shows are mostly unfunny and
unoriginal, they all differ from the previous line-up of shows DC was
spewing out like Wizards, Hannah Montana, and The Suite Life. What is
Nick doing instead? Staying in their comfort zone by just doing spin-
offs of their recently ended shows.

The shows that were on Disney and started when iCarly started are the
ones I named and they're long gone. They've been gone. Nick is still
trying to live off iCarly and its looking pretty pathetic. Nick really
needs to move on to something else fast.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1604099/board/flat/207568473?p=1

I already put in my two cents... More like buck fifty ... About
"Marvin, Marvin" on the iCarly board, but...

Suffice to say, Nick needs to step up its game if it not only wants to
grab that coveted tween demographic Disney keeps consistently beating
them in, but also if they want to broaden their appeal (teens and
parents) just like Disney is doing as we speak.

Nick cannot survive on the tween (girl!) demographic alone. Not in a
post-Hannah Montana, post-music era that has seen Disney come out not
only financially richer, but with the ability to seamlessly transition
back to more universally appealing shows now that that era is over.

Bottom line: Nick needs to "grow up" even as a network aimed at kids.
They can do this with shows like "Legend of Kora" and others. So, now
it is a question of will versus having the means.

Oh, BTW...

Disney is continuing its current reign with "Girl Meets World" with
the original Topanga and Cory returning as parents to a 13-year old
girl.

They're coming out of the gate swinging with the one-two punch of
nostalgia and updating the series for the current generation. So,
where are the new Adventures of Pete & Pete Kids, The Mystery Files of
Shelby Woo's Daughter, or the Legacy of Alex Mack? Nickelodeon?
Anyone? Bueller, Bueller?



The underlying thing about "Marvin, Marvin" is it looks safe on paper
if you are a Nick Network exec trying to keep his/her job and move up
the Viacom ladder... But that's all it has going for it,
unfortunately.

Older viewers absolutely hate Lucas Cruikshank, and the little kids
who catapulted him to internet stardom three, four years ago have
grown up and moved on. So, this leaves almost no audience for the show
since young viewers who were too young to like him a few years ago are
now into more current internet sensations & stars like Smosh, and
others.

Nostalgia, on the other hand, is a double-edged sword Hollywood has
hurled itself onto on more than one occasion in the quest to make a
fast buck as evident by all the subpar remakes of movies and TV shows
e.g. Dark Shadows, Mod Squad, 21 Jump Street, etc.

The biggest problem regarding nostalgia comes from both sides:

On the studio side, all they see is the safest way to make more money
without having to try something new... Which is why most reboots and
remakes SUCK.

They don't care about the source material (or fans!) and crank out
what is usually a medicore version of it in the hopes the original
fans will just eat it up and take their kids along with them for the
ride, fulfilling the corporate mandate of why they made the reboot/
remake in the first place.

This is why Tom Seleck has said he will never do a "Magnum P.I." movie
even if he was offered the lead (at his age). He said, most of the
remakes are garbage and treat the source material and its fans like a
joke, literally, but then they hire one of the original (now middle-
aged) cast members to return in a cameo as a way to give the remake a
kind of seal of approval. Regardless of what you may think of Tom
Seleck, he makes a valid point.

Imagine if 10, 15 years from now somebody wants to do a "Victorious"
movie and it turns out like the horrendous "Rock of Ages" musical.
You'd be pretty pissed and just having a 35 to 40-year old Daniella
Monet in a cameo with an all new cast wouldn't be enough to justify
it, either.

The other side of nostalgia is fans often view shows they loved in
their youth with rose colored glasses. Some of the so-called great
shows we all grew up with when we were kids are just plain awful when
viewed as adults and worked solely because we were kids and hadn't
developed more worldly sensibilities, yet.

However, it still comes back to the studios treating the original
source material and fans with respect. This is why I give any reboot/
remake the benefit of the doubt because there have been some good ones
that get lost in the multitude of crappy ones, unfortunately.



Like I said, that's what seems to be missing from a lot of shows this
millennia. The whole shift to music sales thanks to HSM and HM was
Disney's doing, but now everybody is (hopefully!) moving back toward
more universally appealing shows that were the mainstay before that
short-lived era.


I know what you mean on that note. Sometimes, I think the reason I'm
more into shows from the late 90's up until about '05 or '06 is
because they had more relatable, "everyday kid"-type plots that
touched base on more real-world situations in each episode with
school, family, friends, etc., as opposed to the more "every-kid's-
dream"-type shows that deal with fame and other things, like
Victorious and Hannah Montana, where most of the situations can only
really be dealt with by people of their lifestyle. Good Luck Charlie
seems to be doing a decent job of bringing back the essence of the
former. It's a good show and it's pretty funny, too. I only wish they
would focus just a little less on the characters' quirks. I know it's
a Disney show and all, but still, if they wanted to bring back the
"feel" of shows like Full House or whatever, they could add just a
little more variety to their jokes, and a little more depth to their
plots as well, but that's just my opinion. I've never seen Jessie, but
I imagine it suffers from the same problem, based on the promos I saw
for the show.

I've actually recently started working on plans for my own animated
show, that I'm hoping would bring back that certain real-world "flair"
that shows from the late '90s-early '00s had. The main character is a
tween girl, BUT I want to try and mix some elements into the show so
that it's also appealing to guys, and adults as well. I'm hoping to
pitch the series to either Nick or Disney in the future. Of course,
I'm gonna have to have a little experience with working in television
before I am able to pitch my own show, so I'm thinking of beginning my
career by writing for a few shows, then later on, I'm hoping to get a
job as a storyboard artist for a couple cartoons. Anyway, if you want
to check out what I have planned so far for my show, I just posted
about it in the Animation forum on this website. I also wrote about it
on ToonZone and tv.com early this month. I wanted others' input on
what to do to develop the idea for my show so it's a potential hit.