Is Cartoon Network even trying any more?

[Dr.Epic]

Spoiler'd for length:

So I know we got Toonami back and every Friday night they show good nostalgic shows, but some of their recent shows are just so bad. Bad beyond words. They still got good shows: I love Adventure Time and Regular Show. Young Justice is pretty good, but I haven't seen that in awhile since it's switched time slots and it's hard enough to get me awake on a weekday morning let alone Saturday morning. Gumball has its moments - I like the daddy and little girl bunny.

I'm not sure about other kid's channels. I only watch Nick for Legend of Korra. I know some of the other shows they have, but I don't know enough about them to really say if they're horrible. Just short clips I've seen and since kids shows aren't really my thing (other than a few) I kind of feel bad calling them horrible for something that is so not my thing. Kind of like asking an English teacher to comment on a biology project: not their area of expertise. But regardless of what you're into, some of these new shows on Cartoon Network are so bad it doesn't matter what you like. They're offensive regardless.

But even with their good shows, some of their other shows just completely throws off the entire quality of the channel (if that makes any sense). First there's Mad with its "jokes" that are all pop culture references. And the jokes are mostly just X meets Y (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XMeetsY) which isn't a bad thing if it's done right. Like There Will Be Brawl was amazing because it was clever and the guys behind it knew how to merge gritty-film-noir-type stories with Smash Bros. and make it look seamless. But Mad is just mostly inspired by dumb puns. Like "Let's combine Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance. They're both recent films and have Ghost in the title. It'll be hilarious!" On top of that, I'm pretty sure most of the jokes and references would just go above the kids heads. I was flipping channels one day and saw they were doing a District 9 parody and that is so not a film kids would have seen. Also, it's clear with many of their skits they don't know the source material. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch) As for animation...I know there's stylization, and this is supposed to be a comedy, and even South Park's early seasons the art was bad, but the artwork is still bad.

Then there's Level Up which I hate with a passion.:smallfurious: Words can't even describe my loathing of this show. If you have seen it, just imagine a live action version of Captain N: the Game Master and then imagine something 50 times worse. Speaking as a gamer and huge fan of RPGs, when something tries to represent gaming culture and fails miserably, it comes off as very offensive.:smallannoyed: The ironic thing is I do actually like the concept: a comedic-fantasy-slightly-meta-gamer series. That sounds pretty awesome. I love Munchkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_%28card_game%29), and the Guild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_guild) and Legend of Neil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_Neil), and There Will Be Brawl. But those are all written by people with senses of humor and know their source material. I can't go into enough detail as to why this show is truly bad other than what I've said, but the biggest flaws are it suffers from bland characters and plotlines and again the writers don't know the source material (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch) (even with a fictional MMO).:smallannoyed:

The last heinous show they've put out is the Annoying Orange, and honestly, do I even have to explain why this doesn't work as a show? Giving a television slot to something called the Annoying Orange? It's one of those series that mistakes something being annoying for something being funny. I saw the pilot a few days ago out of curiosity and boredom and it did not disappoint. It was BAD! I can't even really go into more detail other than that because it's so obvious why it's bad: annoy+random+stupid=not funny.

So, any thoughts on this?

[MCerberus]

Simply put, they're cheap to make so even if the ratings aren't as good as the high quality shows, they'll make money. Maybe one will even be a breakout. It's not possible to have every show be a subtle parody of 80s and 90s through a modern lens, a creative nightmare that explores the failings of human society by a child that just wants to do well, a labor of love afforded whatever VO it needs, or a vessel for a Russian guy to experiment with action animation formulas.

[grimbold]

annoying orange is a show now?


anyway
everytime i go back to america i am shocked at how the programmign from my childhood has deteriorated :smallannoyed:

[irenicObserver]

Simply put, they're cheap to make so even if the ratings aren't as good as the high quality shows, they'll make money. Maybe one will even be a breakout. It's not possible to have every show be a subtle parody of 80s and 90s through a modern lens, a creative nightmare that explores the failings of human society by a child that just wants to do well, a labor of love afforded whatever VO it needs, or a vessel for a Russian guy to experiment with action animation formulas.

Okay, I can tell the last one is Genndy Tartakovksy but what are the other three?

[Fjolnir]

the first is several things from PPG to Fosters, the second I am unfamiliar with though it could be fairly oddparents (a stretch to say TT wants to "do well"), the third is a blank as well though the last is most certainly gendy.

[Dr.Epic]

Simply put, they're cheap to make so even if the ratings aren't as good as the high quality shows, they'll make money.

Low budget doesn't mean low quality. There are plenty of great films and TV shows that started out with very small budgets but are acclaimed as masterpieces. Mystery Science Theater 3000 (a show I love) started out with a small budget and it showed but they worked around it. The cheap sets and props had charm as they referenced the poor sets and props from the films they watched. Not to mention the show was funny enough that you didn't care about those things. In short, if you're clever and talented enough, a low budget should never be an obstacle to produce something great.

I just hope with their better shows they get enough money to stop letting these bad programs come on the air.

[t209]

Low budget doesn't mean low quality. There are plenty of great films and TV shows that started out with very small budgets but are acclaimed as masterpieces. Mystery Science Theater 3000 (a show I love) started out with a small budget and it showed but they worked around it. The cheap sets and props had charm as they referenced the poor sets and props from the films they watched. Not to mention the show was funny enough that you didn't care about those things. In short, if you're clever and talented enough, a low budget should never be an obstacle to produce something great.

I just hope with their better shows they get enough money to stop letting these bad programs come on the air.

Don't forget I claudius and Black Adder (Later episodes though).
Too bad they cancelled Symbionic Titan, I just wanted to see them liberating their planet.

[INDYSTAR188]

I wanna know when Venture Brothers season 5 is gonna be on! I enjoy Adventure Time (but only found it recently) on a part time basis as my wife thinks it's to stupid to watch. I like the Regular Show too but don't watch very often. Other than those two I tune in to Adult Swim but not lately.

[Lord Seth]

everytime i go back to america i am shocked at how the programmign from my childhood has deteriorated :smallannoyed:Meh, TV probably wasn't that good in your childhood. People always block out the subpar shows and just remember what they liked. Not to mention the fact that a fair amount of the shows people liked when they were kids, looking back, weren't that good.

Nostalgia does wonderful things for people.

[Crow]

Meh, TV probably wasn't that good in your childhood. People always block out the subpar shows and just remember what they liked. Not to mention the fact that a fair amount of the shows people liked when they were kids, looking back, weren't that good.

Nostalgia does wonderful things for people.

I'm pretty sure I will never look back and consider Tim & Eric or Check It Out to be any good.

[erikun]

I don't watch TV much, but I think Adventure Time and Gumball are watchable. I'm not too sure about the others; some (Legend of Korra) I haven't seen while others (Regular Show) just don't impress me at all.

Overall it seems like when I was a kid, just with me having less time/more discerning in what to watch.

[Jayngfet]

Simply put, they're cheap to make so even if the ratings aren't as good as the high quality shows, they'll make money. Maybe one will even be a breakout. It's not possible to have every show be a subtle parody of 80s and 90s through a modern lens, a creative nightmare that explores the failings of human society by a child that just wants to do well, a labor of love afforded whatever VO it needs, or a vessel for a Russian guy to experiment with action animation formulas.

I dunno, these shows do HORRIBLE for ratings and rarely come with much in terms of merchandising. Heck with no commercials, terrible ratings, and no toy line Level Up pretty much relies on a mediocre browser game to be a measure of success. They try to talk up Hall of Game, but the ratings for it weren't that great considering all the hype and money that seems to have gone into it.

The thing is though even considering that Toonami is ALSO currently a low budget production. It's April 1st. budget was basically nothing, and DeMarco is outright saying their budget is basically still barely substantial as is.

The real thing here is more of a human element. I mean do you think you'd like to be the executive in the boardroom that's suggesting that you've messed up? It's a hard pill to swallow for the people in charge to say that a big part of what they did for the last five years was wrong. It's easier on the pride to try to keep pumping money into the sinking projects you favored than to admit that maybe people, including the target demographic you are shooting for and claiming you dumbed it down for, just plain don't like a lot of the stuff you're showing.

[TSGames]

Answer to topic question: No, not for many years.

[OracleofWuffing]

The way I see it is that Cartoon Network never actually tried that much as a whole. I mean, it was basically made to be a junkyard for a bunch of old cartoons that weren't being broadcasted frequently due to one reason or another.* When a junkyard creates something, there is a significant chance of that something being made of junk. Granted, one man's trash is another man's treasure, but not all trash is treasure.

While I believe network executives are kind of concerned about ratings, I'm pretty certain the whole shebang and its competition are all owned by the same conglomerate, so the boss of everyones bosses pretty much makes money as long as you watch TV. On the tinfoil hat conspiracy level, one might suggest they're slopping out mediocre shows so that the next season's shows won't end up getting compared to their diamonds in the rough. Sadly, with how long ago they started rolling out the live action shows, even I have trouble believing that for long.

*To clarify a minor point here, I'm not saying classics like Bugs Bunny, SWATKats, Pac-Man, Atom Ant, the Super Globetrotters, and others are junk in the sense that they're horrible shows. What I mean is that people probably perceived them as junk because it was something that was not being used to turn profit, and thus disposable in the nature that resembles junk. Except Scooby-Doo, that's garbage.:smalltongue:

[Lord Seth]

I dunno, these shows do HORRIBLE for ratings and rarely come with much in terms of merchandising. Heck with no commercials, terrible ratings, and no toy line Level Up pretty much relies on a mediocre browser game to be a measure of success.Level Up's ratings aren't terrible. I mean, they aren't good...but I wouldn't call them terrible either, by Cartoon Network's standards anyway. It does seem to be doing better than Cartoon Network's previous live action scripted series in total viewers, if nothing else.

Of course, a lot depends on demographics data, which isn't as easily available to the public as total viewers. Demographics are what decide how much the advertisers are willing to pay and thus how much money is made from advertisements during the show, which is a significant source of income.

[tyckspoon]

Meh, TV probably wasn't that good in your childhood. People always block out the subpar shows and just remember what they liked. Not to mention the fact that a fair amount of the shows people liked when they were kids, looking back, weren't that good.

Nostalgia does wonderful things for people.

Speak for yourself, my childhood was the period when Spielberg decided to do cartoons. Animaniacs, Tiny Toons, Pinky and The Brain, the animated Tick, all authentic quality. And then a few shows that I'm fond of but aren't especially good in retrospect (Earthworm Jim, Freakazoid.. good for one-off gags, but it didn't hold together well as a complete show.)

[Lhurgyof]

Perhaps you're just growing up so some kids shows are just unappealing to you now.

Just imagine being like 8 or 10. I'm sure mad would seem funnier. These shows aren't aimed at you, bro. They're kids shows for a reason.

[Lord Seth]

Speak for yourself, my childhood was the period when Spielberg decided to do cartoons. Animaniacs, Tiny Toons, Pinky and The Brain, the animated Tick, all authentic quality. And then a few shows that I'm fond of but aren't especially good in retrospect (Earthworm Jim, Freakazoid.. good for one-off gags, but it didn't hold together well as a complete show.)But that's my point. You remember the shows you liked and forget about shows you didn't like (unless it was a show you really disliked). A nostalgia filter, as some people call it.

Even in the "glory days" people often point to there was a heck of a lot of bad stuff that people just don't remember because they were bad (and in quite a few cases, didn't stick around long enough to make much of an impression anyway).

That's not to say, of course, that certain time periods did have a higher quantity of decent programming than other time periods. But not to the extent that people make it out to be.

[thubby]

Perhaps you're just growing up so some kids shows are just unappealing to you now.

Just imagine being like 8 or 10. I'm sure mad would seem funnier. These shows aren't aimed at you, bro. They're kids shows for a reason.

looney toons, tiny toons, animaniacs, dexter's lab, batman, the list goes on and on of shows that are intended for children and just good.

[Scowling Dragon]

Sorry but no. I actually REWATCHED some of the older cartoons to make sure that they where good. Sure they wheren't all amazing but you could see plenty of effort in production.

[Lycan 01]

Regular Show is the only reason I ever turn Cartoon Network on anymore. I absolutely love it, but that's not the topic at hand.

Cartoon Network has been going downhill for years. It seems like like its in its death knell than anything else. I mean, they don't even call it Cartoon Network anymore, IIRC. Now its just "The CN" or "CN Real." :smallannoyed:


I miss Courage. :smallfrown:

[tyckspoon]

But that's my point. You remember the shows you liked and forget about shows you didn't like (unless it was a show you really disliked). A nostalgia filter, as some people call it.


..nooo. 'cause this was also the 90's XTREME period. I have a pretty good memory. There was a *lot* of crap (Street Sharks ring any bells for anybody? Biker Mice From Mars, which is probably the best concept of all time?) The thing is, almost all of it got *recognized* as crap and was pretty transient. It got released, it had one season with associated attempt to sell toys, and it got buried with the rest of the crap. The shows I named stand out to me because it's the only time period I know of where you could watch an entire programming block of good cartoons. Not one good show with some throw-it-at-the-wall-and-hope-it-sticks stuff bookending it, not one show that is the only reason you ever tune to the channel that has it, but like three hours straight of decent animated kid's programming.

[TheSummoner]

But that's my point. You remember the shows you liked and forget about shows you didn't like (unless it was a show you really disliked). A nostalgia filter, as some people call it.

Even in the "glory days" people often point to there was a heck of a lot of bad stuff that people just don't remember because they were bad (and in quite a few cases, didn't stick around long enough to make much of an impression anyway).

That's not to say, of course, that certain time periods did have a higher quantity of decent programming than other time periods. But not to the extent that people make it out to be.

I do love the whole "nostalgia filter" arguement. It's like the fact that we experienced it in the past somehow negates the fact that we consider it to be of much higher quality.

Yes, there was tons of crap back then as well. I don't think anyone is denying that. Maybe some people don't remember the crap, but I don't see anyone claiming that EVERY kid's show from the 80's/90's was golden, only that the overall level of quality was far better. That there were more good shows then. That the shows that were good are better than the modern ones.

tyckspoon listed several great 90's cartoons. thubby listed more. How many cartoons from the last 5 years (10 if you want to be generous), aimed at kids primarily, can you name off that are as good as or better than those?

The only one I can think of is Adventure Time. (Regular Show is certainly good, but I still don't put it on the same level as those).

Personally, I think it's a matter of effort on the part of the creators. Do you know what I remember about the cartoons I liked from my childhood? They were clever. They were witty. I can go back even now and watch old episodes and still laugh... Sometimes even more than I did when I was a kid because I actually get more of the references. The shows didn't act like their target demographic was stupid.

Nowadays? Abstract wackiness and zany idiocy is all you get from the average kid's show. Tween "dramadies" with a laugh-track playing every three seconds because the creators don't even think their audience is smart enough to decide for themselves when something is actually funny. Shows that think loudly yelling something moronic is a substitute for actual humor.

Sadly, even shows aimed at older audiences seem to be suffering from some of the same problems.

Anyways, it's getting rather late here so I should probably get some sleep. I'll just leave this guy behind while I'm gone. You probably won't be able to tell the difference. :smalltongue:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111204185357/donkeykong/images/thumb/7/74/Cranky.jpg/610px-Cranky.jpg(Image spoilered for size)

[tyckspoon]

Anyways, it's getting rather late here so I should probably get some sleep. I'll just leave this guy behind while I'm gone. You probably won't be able to tell the difference. :smalltongue:


Slappy Squirrel would have been more apropos to this thread.

[Raistlin1040]

Apparently, Cartoon Network was the top network for boys aged 6-14 in the first quarter this year, so obviously they're doing something right.

A few things: Cartoon Network, as far as I can remember from like ten years ago, was sort of a mess of a lot of other programs put together. There were classics like Boomerang and popular shows in syndication, but original programming was not always on the agenda. When it was, it was always animated; hence CARTOON Network. However, I would say that the acquired programs almost always took precedent over originals. Original programming is expensive and doesn't offer a substantial benefit unless it's a massive hit.

This naturally leads to a dependence on acquired programming. Everything currently on Cartoon Network is "acquired" except for Adventure Time, Regular Show, Gumball, and Level Up. Currently, Level Up is the only show on Cartoon Network that is live-action, continuing the trend of bad live-action shows like Out Of Jimmy's Head.

The idea behind these live-action shows appears to be a mixing of lots of special effects or animation and live action in some Roger Rabbit style. I assume this is to balance the network. Both Nick and Disney have cartoon and live action in far more equitable amounts, and that means they can A) hit more demographics and B) try to get people who don't like cartoons or think they're stupid. Level Up is a perfect show (in theory) for someone who is 11-14 and thinks they're too grown up for cartoons.

Setting aside the live-action, Cartoon Network has an amazing record of good original programming. In addition to Adventure Time and Regular Show (which are generally well-received), the list of original programming on CN includes Ben 10, Flapjack, the first Clone Wars, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Samurai Jack, Megas XLR and The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy, which all are pretty well-liked. Admittedly, not all of those are for the standard "cartoon demographic", but some of them are.

No, the acquired programming is not always the best. The current crop of acquired programs includes mediocre pseudoanime (Pokemon, Beyblade) and ridiculous ideas (Amazing Orange, really?), but it's not all bad either. Young Justice, Green Lantern, and the ThunderCats reboot are all decent, at least.

So in conclusion, part of this is nostalgia tunnelvision. There are good programs now, and there will always be good programs. Yes, Cartoon Network is trying hard to push drivel like the Annoying Orange or Level Up on consumers because they want ratings and higher profits, but to say they aren't trying is unfair to the great products they have turned out like Adventure Time.

[Lord Seth]

tyckspoon listed several great 90's cartoons. thubby listed more. How many cartoons from the last 5 years (10 if you want to be generous), aimed at kids primarily, can you name off that are as good as or better than those?Avatar. Danny Phantom. Codename: Kids Next Door. Megas XLR. Young Justice. Phineas and Ferb. Fillmore. W.I.T.C.H. Batman: The Brave and the Bold. Justice League Unlimited. Kim Possible. Duck Dodgers. Dan Vs.
Tween "dramadies" with a laugh-track playing every three seconds because the creators don't even think their audience is smart enough to decide for themselves when something is actually funny.Laugh tracks are nothing that didn't exist back then, and for whatever it's worth, a lot of shows people complain about having "laugh tracks" actually have studio audiences. At any rate, some shows with laugh tracks/studio audiences are good, some shows with them are bad, some shows without them are good, and some shows without them are bad. Just saying "laugh track!" isn't really much of a point.

I think you're also misusing the word "dramedies." All of the shows I can think of that fit what you seem to be talking about are not dramedies (I prefer the term comedy-drama), they're just straight comedies.

[Scowling Dragon]

.Laugh tracks are nothing that didn't exist back then, and for whatever it's worth, a lot of shows people complain about having "laugh tracks" actually have studio audiences.

Dam. I think the audiences they are recording with have either incredibly low expectations or are just pumped full of laugh gas.

[Xondoure]

Dam. I think the audiences they are recording with have either incredibly low expectations or are just pumped full of laugh gas.

Live audiences as a rule laugh more than you would sitting at home. There's something infectious about laughter, so it only takes a few people getting it for the joke to go off. And of course sometimes it's just a laugh track.

[Scowling Dragon]

There is logic in what you say, but Im also talking about the "OOOOOOOOOhs" or "EEEEEEES" when there is a kiss or something. I will agree that some shows need to be watched in groups to be funny, but oohs and EEES are not infectious.

[Eric Tolle]

And you know what? Back in the 90s, the kids stayed off our lawns!

[Xondoure]

There is logic in what you say, but Im also talking about the "OOOOOOOOOhs" or "EEEEEEES" when there is a kiss or something. I will agree that some shows need to be watched in groups to be funny, but oohs and EEES are not infectious.

Yeah they are. It's a group mind effect. One person starts doing it, and others will join in. Yay peer pressure!

Of course, you can have audiences where no one laughs, but that's a bad audience. And generally the show suffers for it. That's what's great about live theater. The more the audience gives the more enjoyable the show becomes.

[TheSummoner]

Laugh track, studio audience laughter. Different thing, same result. It's still canned laughter inserted into the show at every possible point to make something seem funnier than it actually is. (besides, an "applause" sign and a group mentality is really no better than simply editing it in anyways.)

Sure, a show with fake laughing can still be good, and a show without it can still be bad, but fake laughter in and of itself is still a bad thing. It's a clear sign that the show 1) Is trying to trick you into laughing at something that isn't actually funny via the same group mentality that gets studio audience laughter and/or 2) Doesn't think you're smart enough to decide for yourself when something is actually funny.

[Scowling Dragon]

Reminds me of something funny I once heard:

"80s dan is filmed in front of a live audiorecording machine"

[Dr.Epic]

Answer to topic question: No, not for many years.

Well they made Adventure Time and Regular Show fairly recent. That took some effort so it couldn't have been many years.

[Lord Seth]

Laugh track, studio audience laughter. Different thing, same result. It's still canned laughter inserted into the show at every possible point to make something seem funnier than it actually is.Not really. The studio audience serves the purpose of giving the same feeling as watching a play. It's why the shows that use them are multicamera: Those give you much more of a "watching a play" feeling than a single camera; indeed, to the studio audience it is like watching a play, albeit a play with multiple takes.

Admittedly, for a while there were single camera shows with laugh tracks (honestly, I'm not sure how you can have a single camera show with a studio audience), but nowadays it's back to the way it originally was: Multicamera comedies have studio audiences (or in a few cases actual laugh tracks), whereas single camera comedies don't.


(besides, an "applause" sign and a group mentality is really no better than simply editing it in anyways.)I don't think they really use signs that much anymore, and group mentality again is something that affects any play.

Or, of course...maybe people just think the show is funny. Just because I don't think something is funny doesn't mean other people don't, especially considering that the people who are going to the tapings are likely fans of the show anyway.


Sure, a show with fake laughing can still be good, and a show without it can still be bad, but fake laughter in and of itself is still a bad thing.But that's the issue right there, you're accusing it all of being "fake laughter" even in the cases where it's a legitimate studio audience. Now, to be fair, most (though not all) shows with a studio audience do some editing after the fact, but I still wouldn't go so far as to call it "fake." Maybe "adjusted" but not fake.


It's a clear sign that the show 1) Is trying to trick you into laughing at something that isn't actually funny via the same group mentality that gets studio audience laughter and/or 2) Doesn't think you're smart enough to decide for yourself when something is actually funny.It's odd people always pull this "it's trying to trick you into laughing!" idea when honestly, I've never found that to be the effect.

I don't think #1 or #2 is true for the most part. The laughter is there, again, because the audience is supposed to feel as if it's live theater, which elements such as the multicamera style and laughter fit in with.

However, the point isn't even whether laugh tracks or studio audiences are a good or a bad or a neutral thing, which suddenly makes me wonder why I wrote all that. The point I was making was that this isn't new. Older shows did it, newer shows do it, so trying to say "now there are laugh tracks" doesn't make sense because it's in opposition to...times when there was a studio audience or laugh tracks.

[tyckspoon]

Avatar. Danny Phantom. Codename: Kids Next Door. Megas XLR. Young Justice. Phineas and Ferb. Fillmore. W.I.T.C.H. Batman: The Brave and the Bold. Justice League Unlimited. Kim Possible. Duck Dodgers. Dan Vs.

Mostly this list shows that the early and mid 2000s were *also* a pretty good time for animated televions (Avatar, Phantom, KND, Megas, W.I.T.C.H, Kim Possible, Fillmore all from ~2002-2006. I'd put Jackie Chan Adventures and Teen Titans in here as decent TV from this period as well.) It doesn't do much against the claim that *current* animation is a bit of a wasteland with a couple of standout shows.

[Lord Seth]

Ah, meant to respond to this:
Apparently, Cartoon Network was the top network for boys aged 6-14 in the first quarter this year, so obviously they're doing something right.Hrm...source? I was under the impression the current rankings was, and had been for the last few months, Disney>Nickelodeon>Cartoon Network (Nickelodeon used to be ahead of Disney but seems to have slipped some recently).


This naturally leads to a dependence on acquired programming. Everything currently on Cartoon Network is "acquired" except for Adventure Time, Regular Show, Gumball, and Level Up.Young Justice? Ben 10? Thundercats? Scooby Doo Mystery Inc?

There's also older shows they rerun, though you might be using "acquired" in the sense of "any show they're not currently making." Though honestly, I feel I should point out that's true of pretty much any cable channel. USA, for example, has a lot of original series, but they still show a lot of non-originals like House or NCIS. When you've got 24 hours to fill, non-original shows are a great way to fill up time.


No, the acquired programming is not always the best. The current crop of acquired programs includes mediocre pseudoanime (Pokemon, Beyblade) and ridiculous ideas (Amazing Orange, really?), but it's not all bad either.How is Pokemon or Beyblade pseudoanime? They're cartoons from Japan, by definition they're anime. There's no "pseudo" about it.


Young Justice, Green Lantern, and the ThunderCats reboot are all decent, at least.as I noted before, how are those acquired programming when they're original series for the channel?

EDIT: And now to respond to one that was added in the meantime:

Mostly this list shows that the early and mid 2000s were *also* a pretty good time for animated televions (Avatar, Phantom, KND, Megas, W.I.T.C.H, Kim Possible, Fillmore all from ~2002-2006. I'd put Jackie Chan Adventures and Teen Titans in here as decent TV from this period as well.)I would've listed Jackie Chan Adventures, but I was attempting to list shows that aired entirely in the last 10 years, whereas Jackie Chan Adventures started before that.

It doesn't do much against the claim that *current* animation is a bit of a wasteland with a couple of standout shows.The problem is that that's comparing different things. You say "current" but the older shows people listed didn't all air at the same time. Let's look at the ones listed. Note that I'm referring to the series itself, specials that aired years afterward don't count:
Looney Tunes: Don't these actually predate cable?
Tiny Toon Adventures: 1990-1992
Animaniacs: 1993-1998
Dexter's Laboratory: 1995-1999, 2001-2003
Batman: 1992-1994, 1997-1998
Pinky and the Brain: 1995-1998
The Tick: 1994-1996

These didn't all air at the same time, as we can see. Although reruns were aired on TV, Looney Tunes itself mostly goes back to theaters rather than TV shows. I don't think any year had more than four of these airing new episodes simultaneously, which is certainly less than the seven that were listed. To be fair though, you can probably toss out some more to bring the total up. Still, it's important we do a valid comparison. You can't compare a 5-year stretch with something more like a 1-year stretch (which I assume is meant by "current") and conclude things were much better in the past because the 5-year stretch had more good shows. You're giving a massive advantage to the past from the get-go.

Of course, one problem with listing the "good" shows is the subjectivity of some of them. For example, I thought Animaniacs was decent, but I wasn't really that thrilled with the Pinky and the Brain spinoff...I thought they worked well as shorts in Animaniacs, but had trouble sustaining their own series. And I'm not really that big on Adventure Time, though I loved the original short. Still, here's some non-anime kid's cartoons that seem to be considered decent by a fair amount of people that are in production right now:
1. Adventure Time
2. Regular Show
3. Phineas and Ferb
4. Dan Vs.
5. My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic
6. Young Justice
7. Korra

There's probably some more you could toss in as well; for example, I considered listing The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, as I've heard good things about it, but held off because I've never seen it. But for proper comparison we need explicit definitions of the years we're comparing.

[Raistlin1040]

The difference between original and acquired isn't whether it's an exclusive or not. Adventure Time and Regular Show are produced or co-produced by Cartoon Network Studios, and hence are considered "original" programming. Young Justice and ThunderCats are both produced by Warner Bros and an affiliate (something Japanese for ThunderCats, and DC for Young Justice), meaning that they are acquired programming. You are correct that Ben 10: Ultimate Alien is being shown in reruns and that it is original programming. I forgot there were reruns of it being shown right now.

I can't find an unbiased source, as the only source that I can find is Cartoon Network themselves. However, their programming is very oriented towards boys, where Nick and Disney have a more even split, so it's not hard to believe that CN pulls ahead of the others in boys, but Nick and Disney more than make up the gap with girls.

And yeah, Pokemon and Beyblade are actual anime, but the quality is poor, so I'm just being finicky.

[Lord Seth]

The difference between original and acquired isn't whether it's an exclusive or not. Adventure Time and Regular Show are produced or co-produced by Cartoon Network Studios, and hence are considered "original" programming. Young Justice and ThunderCats are both produced by Warner Bros and an affiliate (something Japanese for ThunderCats, and DC for Young Justice), meaning that they are acquired programming.That seems a little finicky, though, because Warner Bros is owned by the same company that owns Cartoon Network.

But to me at least, if it originally aired on Cartoon Network rather than some other channel, then I'd call it an original.
You are correct that Ben 10: Ultimate Alien is being shown in reruns and that it is original programming. I forgot there were reruns of it being shown right now.There's always a Ben 10 series running, it seems. And there's yet another one coming up, I think. They sure love their Ben 10...


I can't find an unbiased source, as the only source that I can find is Cartoon Network themselves.Could you show me the exact press release? Because you always have to look at these things closely, as networks love to spin numbers, especially the networks that release press releases more frequently (as it means they have to come up with some way to make the numbers look great even if there wasn't anything particularly notable). I mean, it was actually sometimes funny to read ABC press releases and see how hard they would spin the numbers...gotta loved how they were acting in the press releases as if their Charlie's Angels reboot was doing well.

EDIT: Oh, and looking a bit further, in one press release they tried to make it sound as if Work It--the biggest flop of the season--did well. Granted, this is ABC we're talking about, not Cartoon Network, but it does illustrate how desperately networks will sometimes spin numbers.

[Raistlin1040]

Well yeah, Time Warner owns a lot of things. I'd still say there is a difference between Cartoon Network Studios and Warner Bros. Animation.

Here is one week of data (http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/05/30/ratings-notes-for-adult-swim-tbs-cartoon-network-tnt-trutv-nba-playoffs-conan-men-at-work-eagleheart-south-beach-tow-hardcore-pawn-more/136217/). Obviously this is a small sample size, but looking at a few other weeks, generally the trend continues. Choice quotes include, but are not limited to:

"Cartoon Network in May 2012 ranked as television’s #1 network for early prime (7-9 p.m.) delivery of boys 2-11, 6-11 & 9-14."
"Also across May, Cartoon Network ranked as the #1 television network (broadcast & cable) among kids (2-11, 6-11, 9-14) and boys on Monday night."
"Cartoon Network again ranked #1 among all boys on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday & Friday nights; and #1 among boys 2-11 & 6-11 on Saturday and Sunday nights (7-9 p.m.)."

[Lord Seth]

"Cartoon Network in May 2012 ranked as television’s #1 network for early prime (7-9 p.m.) delivery of boys 2-11, 6-11 & 9-14."Note that carefully. Early prime, defined as 7-9 p.m. (eastern time, I assume). Makes you wonder about the rest of the day (which, at least for when combining males and females, has Nickelodeon and Disney win...though I wouldn't be surprised if they win in boys on the rest of the day considering the silence of the press release on that subject). Also worth noting that one of their biggest competitors, Nickelodeon, switches to Nick@Nite midway through that time period, which is obviously going to cause a bunch of the kids to change the channel or turn their TV off (I know I did growing up). It's still a bit of an impressive statistic...


"Also across May, Cartoon Network ranked as the #1 television network (broadcast & cable) among kids (2-11, 6-11, 9-14) and boys on Monday night."...this one, on the other hand, is not. Monday is when Cartoon Network airs a bunch of new shows. Monday is typically not when Nickelodeon and Disney air new shows. New programming handily beating reruns is nothing impressive (reruns beating new programming, on the other hand, usually is, though that often says more about the ratings of the new programming than the reruns).

[Jayngfet]

Level Up's ratings aren't terrible. I mean, they aren't good...but I wouldn't call them terrible either, by Cartoon Network's standards anyway. It does seem to be doing better than Cartoon Network's previous live action scripted series in total viewers, if nothing else.

Yeah, but you have to factor in exactly how much money has been pumped into Level Up. I mean yeah, it's ratings wouldn't be that bad if it was given the same treatment as any other new show, but the whole commercial free thing and receiving as much advertising space as it did on top of that means it needs to be doing a bit better than it is. "terrible" might be a bit strong, but "adequate" isn't QUITE right either.

[Soras Teva Gee]

That seems a little finicky, though, because Warner Bros is owned by the same company that owns Cartoon Network

More precisely CN is owned and operated by Turner Broadcasting System who in turn are a subsidiary of Time Warner. So while connected CN and DC for example might are almost separate companies because the accounting and budgeting for them would be completely different. Each company would keep its own balance sheets, head quarters, and doesn't have to answer directly to one another.

So when Cartoon Network produces as a show "internally" it would also have to fully finance it, while also getting the full profits, and the work would be done by people on their payroll or under contract to their own studio. However with say Young Justice and Thundercats, both are made by Warner Bros. Animation (w/ Studio 4*C for Thundercats) which is a separate studio so all the paychecks to the creator will have different names. So the production costs aren't paid by directly Cartoon Network, but they also take a divided share of the profits accordingly.

Sure it all eventually will flow up to big pappy Time Warner, but only at some percentage of the total results of each particular subsidiary.

(This all aside from our end I'd agree that if its the first/only network airing new content for a program then for a network it "counts" as original content. However this is only really not the case when discussing reruns in syndication or imports such as animes)