-
2 years 7 months ago
- Posts: 56
| Mezase_Master wrote: TheEducator wrote: Mezase_Master wrote: TheEducator wrote: vkimo wrote: I hate to say it, but just about all of them. I mean yeah, they still rock. But they seemed to be so much more full of substance back then. Gotta remember, Rugrats and Rocko episodes consisted of 2 15 minute stories. Not much room for development. Call me sentimental.
11 minutes actually. And there was plenty of room for development. If they'd been full half hour (22 minute) episodes (granted, there were a handful of "special" episodes that ran that long), they would have been diluted and dragged. 22 minutes is an eternity in a cartoon. I disagree. I watched a few half-hour cartoons, and I always enjoyed how long the stories were compared to the short half-half-hour ones. Further, I agree with vkimo that it becomes a lot more apparent after you grow up.
Which ones did you watch that you enjoyed?
Every cartoon based on 22 minute stories I ever saw (well, with the exception of South Park) was blatantly full of filler and just dragged. That's one of the hallmarks of successful cartoons throughout history - they were divided up into shorter stories and/or shorts featuring different sets of characters. Well, the Simpsons for one. It didn't have much filler, just subplots if the main plot couldn't be stretched into an entire episode. Pokemon, too, which even now I'd honestly say didn't drag on too much. Also Inspector Gadget and Speed Racer were good for it because they were more action cartoons that needed more fully developed plots. Finally, as you said, South Park. And all of those were some of my absolute favorites growing up. Usually it's just traditional slapstick cartoons that have the half-hour plots, so it probably works better for shows focused entirely on comedy that just need some minor setup for wacky antics. I guess that's fitting for them, but I like the ones that focus more on the plot and providing an intricate story, where I certainly think half-hour works better.
Yeah, see, I think the longer cartoon stories usually include a lot of action sequences to fill the time. Those based purely on satire can usually get away with it without watering it down (South Park, Simpsons, etc.), but...
We'll use Rocko's Modern Life as an example, though it's also a satirical show in nature. If you look at, say, the airline episode, how much longer could that one have realistically gone? In 11 minutes, they comprehensively satirized all the problems with modern, deregulated airlines. I would get tired of the episode if they dragged out his time on the airplane much longer, or at the airport. It's an episode on flying, and that doesn't need 22 minutes to cover thoroughly. Plus, with commercials running in between, that would break up the flow of the story, pretty much mandating a cliff hanger.
I think with just about all of the (good) Nicktoons, they covered their topics thoroughly in 11 minutes. I think we kind of become conditioned to accept padding and fluff in TV, so when we see something without it, it just feels "short," especially as adults who have seen so much television over the years.
|
Scorpion WINS!
& as for Captin Planet i hated that show growing up not shure if i would have a whole new opinion on it today since i have not seen it since 2001 but i should watch it again.