DVDizzy Forum

I mean, Rugrats was, like, THE Nicktoon (until SpongeBob took its place) so I'm very surprised that it hasn't been released on DVD. It's not even in Shout! Factory's lineup. I know that amazon has the burn-on-demand DVDs, but they're so expensive for what they are, and they don't even have the full second season.

And you know what else sucks? The first three seasons (aka the watchable seasons >___>) aren't even on Netflix.

Such a shame.

Actually I could say (almost) the same about Doug too. We have the amazon releases, sure, but they're pretty much glorified burned DVDs, and they're so expensive (and quality of the product can be hit-or-miss). I know that Doug wasn't as big a hit as Rugrats, but it's still a great show (and one of my top five pre-SpongeBob Nicktoons). Doug isn't on Netflix either V_V

Yeah, unfortunately, Nickelodeon still maintains the licensing rights to Rugrats, while Shout! just has what they've been releasing. They also still own the rights to Clarissa Explains It All and The Adventures of Pete & Pete to finish at their own will, but they probably never will.

In the past year, Nick has put out two new Rugrats DVDs, however- a collection of all three theatrical movies and a single-disc Halloween release. The latter is what we'll probably just get more of though, if anything at all.

Yeah, it's so lame.

At least Shout! is giving us Rocko, Real Monsters, and Hey Arnold! (my other favorite Nicktoons).

I thought Viacom had the rights to Rugrats.

I would buy if Shout released them (any of the seasons before Dil came along, that is) Those CreateSpace discs are EXPENSIVE.

I'd be willing to by the DVD-on-Demand releases, but not at the current prices.

Nickelodeon will NEVER give Rugrats the same respect they give their stupid yellow sponge....Spongebob doesn't have to have on demand dvds....he gets ACTUAL DVD Season sets....but Rugrats and other nicktoons with fans don't....it doesn't make sense....they could make a lot of money if they'd just release the complete series.

I can't believe that show ever got the green light.

^^ why? The first three seasons are very well-written and hilarious, and great for kids and adults. It's only after it was cancelled and then brought back a few years later that it started to suck (at least in my opinion).

One reason I never got into Nicktoons, even though the later stuff looked like it might be okay (it also looked more Cartoon Networky), was because I found the early stuff like Rugrats and Aaah, Real Monsters so unappealing. I hated the visuals mostly, but even when I would catch a bit of them, I just didn't see the appeal.

rexcrk wrote:^^ why? The first three seasons are very well-written and hilarious, and great for kids and adults. It's only after it was cancelled and then brought back a few years later that it started to suck (at least in my opinion).

I agree 100%. The first three seasons were mainly produced by Rocko’s vets and were classic Nicktoons in every sense of the word. Life of Crime, Band Geeks, Idiot Box, Wet Painters, Krust Krab Training Video and New Student Starfish are modern classics that I watch all the time (with Sailor Mouth, Artist Unknown, Procrastination, and No Weenies Allowed being pretty great too). If those six episodes don’t hook you, then this show just isn’t for you. The show never recovered from loosing half of it's creative team when being brought back.

Same with Rugrats, after it was cancelled 3 seasons in and came back without Paul Germain, it just wasn’t the same. Everything started to feel formulaic, even the music went from being all original scoring for each episode to a collection if pre-recorded tracks. Just like with The Simpsons, the animation became too on-model and stiff, losing a lot of the wonder from the child perspective that the original seasons had. Despite this, there are still a few episodes in season 4 that a pretty good, even if not the same level as the first 3.

slave2moonlight wrote:One reason I never got into Nicktoons, even though the later stuff looked like it might be okay (it also looked more Cartoon Networky), was because I found the early stuff like Rugrats and Aaah, Real Monsters so unappealing. I hated the visuals mostly, but even when I would catch a bit of them, I just didn't see the appeal.

Then watch SpongeBob or Rocko’s or Hey Arnold, since it seems to be the Klasky-Csupo style you dislike.

jpanimation wrote:

rexcrk wrote:^^ why? The first three seasons are very well-written and hilarious, and great for kids and adults. It's only after it was cancelled and then brought back a few years later that it started to suck (at least in my opinion).

I agree 100%. The first three seasons were mainly produced by Rocko’s vets and were classic Nicktoons in every sense of the word. Life of Crime, Band Geeks, Idiot Box, Wet Painters, Krust Krab Training Video and New Student Starfish are modern classics that I watch all the time (with Sailor Mouth, Artist Unknown, Procrastination, and No Weenies Allowed being pretty great too). If those six episodes don’t hook you, then this show just isn’t for you. The show never recovered from loosing half of it's creative team when being brought back.

Same with Rugrats, after it was cancelled 3 seasons in and came back without Paul Germain, it just wasn’t the same. Everything started to feel formulaic, even the music went from being all original scoring for each episode to a collection if pre-recorded tracks. Just like with The Simpsons, the animation became too on-model and stiff, losing a lot of the wonder from the child perspective that the original seasons had. Despite this, there are still a few episodes in season 4 that a pretty good, even if not the same level as the first 3.

Actually I wasn't talking about SpongeBob, but I completely agree! SpongeBob's first three seasons were good (and the movie) but after the movie it started to suck.

Haha, well you're statement was on point for both of those shows.

I know right? Isn't it funny how both of Nick's biggest shows were only good for the first three seasons? (Although in the case of SpongeBob the first three seasons spanned about 5 years? I think... I don't know why the seasons don't go by year).

I admit that Rugrats was the sort of show I would watch when nothing was on TV at the moment. Regardless it was still a great show with some fun stories. I think it's because the writers nailed that children are children, therefore they are naive, innocent, bratty and fun. The stories that revolved around them used those elements to great strengths.

I agree with everyone else when they say that Nicktoons are great and should be experienced by everyone. Not all of them were perfect and even that memorable, but the absolute best was definitely the absolute best. Even something like Her Arnold was really enjoyable. I think the reason why, much like Cartoon Network's own original shows, is that they were very creator driven and thus we got a great variety of shows. Even the Klasky-Csupo stuff (which had a clearly define art style) was varied. We got slice of life baby stories, a series about skaters, a story about a girl living in the wild and the tween drama/comedy of Ginger.

Nicktoons are quite important in the history of modern day animation. Not all of them were perfect but contributed a lot, and perhaps even inspired Cartoon Network to fund their own shows. So basically, all the cartoons we know and love today were likely inspired by one network's initiative.

Her Arnold?

jpanimation wrote: Then watch SpongeBob or Rocko’s or Hey Arnold, since it seems to be the Klasky-Csupo style you dislike.

Actually, I didn't like the Hey Arnold style either. Didn't really like the art of most of the early Nicktoons (aside from Ren and Stimpy), though I still enjoyed Rocko because it was really funny. I consider SpongeBob the later, better stuff that I wouldn't mind seeing more of sometime.

slave2moonlight wrote:

jpanimation wrote: Then watch SpongeBob or Rocko’s or Hey Arnold, since it seems to be the Klasky-Csupo style you dislike.

Actually, I didn't like the Hey Arnold style either.

How could you not like Hey Arnold??

rexcrk wrote:

slave2moonlight wrote:

Actually, I didn't like the Hey Arnold style either.

How could you not like Hey Arnold??

I said I didn't like the style. I haven't watched the show because the visuals turn me off instantly. I've kind of gotten used to ugly visuals since that show was on though, so maybe I could give it a chance now, but then again, I have gotten used to it for adult comedy animation. I don't know if I could overlook the bad art for animation targeted at a younger audience.

^^ hmm, just curious, but what shows do you think DO have a good visual style? I just ask because I could see how you could think the Klasky Csupo shows (Rugrats, AAHHH!!! Real Monsters, Wild Thornberrys, etc.) had an ugly design but I always thought Hey Arnold! looked pretty good/ normal.

Shows with a visual style I liked? Ren and Stimpy is the only old Nick that comes to mind. Besides that, later stuff like Spongebob and Danny Phantom, and similar stuff to that. Like I said, not too familiar with NickToons because I was so turned off early on. I have always preferred Cartoon Network and Disney. On Cartoon Network, I like pretty much all their shows styles except Edd, Ed, and Eddy. And, I like the style of almost all the Disney shows, except Teacher's Pet and Pepper Ann. Not counting a lot of the newest stuff. I have mixed feelings about Fineas and Ferb, and I can't remember that Fish Hooks show, but I don't think I liked it. I could be forgetting stuff from both networks though. I'm sure I'm forgetting some Disney stuff.

The only area that pops up where I really didn't like the visual style besides certain Nick shows are in adult animation. stuff like Duckman and various Adult Swim cartoons. Some of the Adult Swim shows over the years have been just a total joke when it comes to the animation style. I realize that is often the point, but there have been times in particular that it was ridiculous. Unfortunately, shows come and go so fast that I can't remember which ones I felt that way about off the top of my head, but I know there are some. There's this idea with comedy that it is not important to be able to draw well, which came from comic strip artists always saying how they really weren't good artists (which is rarely true). At some point (I suppose it is really Beavis and Butthead's fault), TV decided to take that idea and run with it. Now, you will sometimes hear creators say that it is funnier when the art sucks. These things CAN be true, but there are limits, and the crappier the art, the funnier the show better be.