Danielle Catherine Mesa
  • Home
  • Comixafluir
  • Blog
  • Writings
    • Pascal & the Timeless Hotel >
      • Pascal and the Timeless Hotel Concept Art
      • Pascal and the Timeless Hotel Concept Art Character Expression Sheets
      • Pascal and the Timeless Hotel Concept Art Backgrounds
      • Pascal and the Timeless Hotel Character Designs
      • Pascal and the Timeless Hotel Updated Sample Art
    • Clumsy Caleb >
      • Clumsy Caleb Series 1 2017-2018 >
        • Clumsy Caleb 01 Vase
        • Clumsy Caleb 02 Stage
        • Clumsy Caleb 03 Deck of Cards
        • Clumsy Caleb 04 Keyboard Kitty
        • Clumsy Caleb 05 Christmas Tree Star
        • Clumsy Caleb 06 Stack of Cans
        • Clumsy Caleb 07 Toy Vending Machine Ball
      • Clumsy Caleb Experimental Interactive Comic
  • Slice of ( N E O N ) Life
    • Slice of ( N E O N ) Life Series 1
    • Slice of ( N E O N ) Life Series 2
  • About
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Comixafluir
  • Blog
  • Writings
    • Pascal & the Timeless Hotel >
      • Pascal and the Timeless Hotel Concept Art
      • Pascal and the Timeless Hotel Concept Art Character Expression Sheets
      • Pascal and the Timeless Hotel Concept Art Backgrounds
      • Pascal and the Timeless Hotel Character Designs
      • Pascal and the Timeless Hotel Updated Sample Art
    • Clumsy Caleb >
      • Clumsy Caleb Series 1 2017-2018 >
        • Clumsy Caleb 01 Vase
        • Clumsy Caleb 02 Stage
        • Clumsy Caleb 03 Deck of Cards
        • Clumsy Caleb 04 Keyboard Kitty
        • Clumsy Caleb 05 Christmas Tree Star
        • Clumsy Caleb 06 Stack of Cans
        • Clumsy Caleb 07 Toy Vending Machine Ball
      • Clumsy Caleb Experimental Interactive Comic
  • Slice of ( N E O N ) Life
    • Slice of ( N E O N ) Life Series 1
    • Slice of ( N E O N ) Life Series 2
  • About
  • Contact



Blog 

Rugrats in Retrospect: A Response to Saberspark's Video 'What RUINED Rugrats - The Untold Drama' and Why Paul Germain was Spot on about Good Storytelling

6/21/2019

6 Comments

 
       In the 1990's, animation was starting to evolve from toy commercial centric cartoons like Care Bears and My Little Pony to creator driven content as seen with Nickelodeon's hit shows of the time like Doug, Rocko's Modern Life and Nick's then pop cultural phenomenon, Rugrats. At the start of the decade​, media and technology entrepreneur, Geraldine Laybourne served as Nickelodeon's first president from 1984 to 1996. She and the rest of the team set out to make Nickelodeon the first network for kids with their unique line-up of shows that were original creator content in order to differentiate themselves from other networks during those years. At the beginning, Doug, The Ren and Stimpy Show and Rugrats were the first three animated shows to be greenlit into production. Of the three, Rugrats would go on to be Nickelodeon's biggest hit, paving the way for the network's upcoming animated shows like Rocko's Modern Life, Angry Beavers and Hey Arnold!. More to the point, Rugrats became the face of Nickelodeon throughout most of the '90's, but then in the latter part of the decade and the start of the 2000's, its popularity gradually began to die down, eventually being eclipsed by Sponge Bob Square Pants. 
​        There is a very specific reason as to why that happened. However, contrary to popular belief, the decline in popularity for Rugrats wasn't so much for the addition of new characters, though, there is some merit to that assumption. The real problem that caused this series to lose its momentum, as seen in Saberspark's video, What RUINED Rugrats? - The Untold Drama, had everything to do with the show creators failing to see eye to eye. The show was created by then married couple, Arlene Klasky and Gabor Cspuo along with fellow co-worker, Paul Germain. In this blog post, I'm not going to delve too much into the notorious drama that went on amongst the writers. I'm just going to pin point the main source of it. Rather, I'm going to discuss my thoughts on the situation from the perspective of an aspiring writer and early childhood teacher. Using my animation and illustration background as well as my experience so far working with children, I will explain with an in-depth analysis on why I favor Mr. Germain's side of the story. 
          For starters, before Rugrats made its debut, the trio worked on a few episodes of The Simpsons shorts for The Tracey Ullman Show from 1987 to 1989 before it made its debut as a television series itself on December 17th, 1989. The Klasky-Csupo team worked on this series during the first three seasons. The Simpsons, which was created by Matt Groening, has been a pop cultural icon for nearly three decades now, and is still going strong to this day, making it the longest running American animated sitcom in history. As we know, the show deals with the titular dysfunctional family and their interactions and responses toward American culture. As simple a concept that may be, what contributes a great deal to the success of The Simpsons is character development and stories that explore the human condition by going into the characters' minds and challenges. Having previously worked on the show, Paul Germain knew that the key to making a top tier animated series was quality storytelling, so his level of expertise would bode well for him in the long run. (I know The Simpsons did suffer a bit in quality over the years, but that's another topic for another day). 
         When pitching a show for Nickelodeon, Arlene Klasky created the concept for Rugrats  with one basic idea in mind that made it truly memorable: "if babies could talk, what would they say?" Having been pregnant during the show's conception, making this a very personal show that was important to her, she had Paul Germain help her elaborate on the idea. Inevitably, Nickelodeon greenlighted production on the series and a total of sixty-five episodes would be in the contract. Rugrats debuted in the summer of 1991. Due to solid promotion, its success and viewership increased immensely. From films, to merchandise, and even a giant parade balloon making its debut in the 1997 Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, there was no denying Rugrats became the crown jewel for Nickelodeon. Unfortunately, as Saberspark pointed out, the events building up towards the show's success was ultimately what lead the show to crumble. There were several feuds between Klasky and Germain that would often put Csupo in the middle as the swing voter between the two.
​           Long story short, Arlene Klasky favored the idea of the baby characters acting more like their age rather than see them acting on adult-like behaviors as seen in the 1992 episode, The Trial in which the babies have a courtroom setup after one of the children destroys Tommy's favorite lamp. Paul Germain was all for writing plot driven narratives with solid character development like that of The Simpsons,​ but for kids. To make this disconnect between the show creators worse,  it was the introduction of Angelica that increased conflict between Klasky and Germain. Germain created Angelica, feeling that the show having an antagonist would tip the scales in its favor. Klasky, having not created the character, strongly disliked Angelica and often complained about her portrayal being too cruel towards the younger children. Inspired by a childhood bully, Germain wanted to explore Angelica's character and craft character driven plots examining why some kids who bully other kids behave the way they do. After Paul Germain's departure in the mid-1990's along with other members of the writing staff, the quality of the writing began to shift. Although that was the time Rugrats skyrocketed in success, a few years later, it began to fizzle and eventually the show ended in 2004. Given all that was happening behind the scenes with this show and in regards to good writing and how children learn and develop through cooperative and explorative play, Paul Germain was definitely on-point when it came to what would have been best for this kind of series.  
                First of all, since Rugrats is a cartoon about children from ages one to three and a half years old, it should delve into topics that focus on the inner workings of early childhood development. The key ingredient that goes into good writing is having a deep understanding of your subject matter and drawing even more inspiration from the real world. It could be from personal experience, people you know or some new insights you've garnered working with others. All of those elements are vital to good storytelling, if not an important foundation for it. Arlene Klasky was right about one thing. When coming up with an idea for a story, it's a good idea to write something that is personal to you, but her unwillingness to listen to her peers left almost no room for personal growth. Good ideas become stronger when you garner deeper understandings of what you're writing about. If Klasky wanted to make a show that was about babies exploring the world around them, she'd be wiser to take those concepts into account. With Paul Germain's approach to writing, he was willing to add and explore those aspects of early childhood development blended with personal experiences and incorporate them into the plots. For example, when the children mimic adult behaviors, that's a prime example in early childhood development with children letting themselves think freely in a risk-free environment. What contributes to children's growth is their freedom to explore certain attributes of adult behaviors and thus, begin to learn about themselves and how the world works. As is the case with The Trial episode, the babies have a courtroom setting in the living room because they have already seen and know that adults attend jury duty. They are somewhat familiar with how that process works. Certainly they may not understand every little detail that there is to know, but at an early age, children observe adults on one side of a testimony and others representing the other perspective in order to determine who might be guilty and who might be innocent. 
               To add to this, from my experience so far working with preschoolers and what I've been studying, I've seen how children play certain games like house, kitchen, or store. Social referencing is something that occurs in infants between six to nine months, which is when babies observe how their caregivers react to certain situations and use that as a model for the appropriate response. Preschoolers already know this social cue from their infancy and build up from it. In terms of childhood development theories, Lev Vygotsky theorized that social interaction among other children is what adds to the child making meaning and gaining new knowledge. He also believed that, unlike Jean Piaget, who categorized childhood development in four stages, children's development is continuous and occurs through cooperative learning. Children, thus learn from each other. Jerome Bruner's Three Modes of Representation observes that children continuously and actively learn by adding on previous knowledge. Enactive, which is based inaction occurs during the early years. Iconic, which is image based, occurs during the mid-childhood years. Symbolic, which is rooted in language, takes place during adolescence. Applying this to The Trail, we see these examples playing out in the episode. We see that the children in the cartoon already understand why adults resolve disputes in a courtroom, so there is a bit of social referencing displayed as the babies are seen referencing adult behaviors to respond to their situation. The way that the Lev Vygotsky theory is depicted, the children are interacting with one another and thus, through this type of play, they are learning through cooperation and making meaning in order to find out who broke the lamp. The way that Bruner's theory plays a role is that at the age that the Rugrats characters are, they are learning through action or Enactive imagery and that is knowledge that gets built on with new knowledge over time. 
             That being said, drawing from real-life examples and knowledge of how children develop are important elements that contribute to good writing. The topic or subject matter you are writing about may be personal to you, but if you don't take the time to build up a deeper understanding from other perspectives and real-life observations, your concept may still be good on paper, but stale in representation. This also leads me to another reason why Germain's approach to storytelling excels over Klasky's, one that should always be at the forefront when crafting a story: who is your target audience? This question may already be a matter of common sense, but its one that seems to get a bit lost as new writers join a team on a show or other type of creative project. As mentioned earlier, Paul Germain envisioned Rugrats being The Simpsons of children's television. What he meant was that the target demographic for Rugrats could appeal to not only children, but adults as well. Just because of the age of the main characters, it shouldn't imply that there can't be stories written in a way that would resonate with older audiences as well. From the sound of the debates between Arlene Klasky and Paul Germain, it was obvious that Klasky failed to understand her audience, much less ever listen to why Germain's writing team was on point. Klasky felt that if they were to make a show about babies, it automatically meant that the main characters should consistently do what babies do. However, there is a major flaw in this thought process: aside from it leaving very little room for character development, it leaves very little room certain topics to be covered, rendering the show's content too stale. 
              The main problem I see with Klasky's approach as to what she thought was right for Rugrats is that she wanted to play the show too safe. Audiences eventually get bored of that. They can easily tell when writers are taking creative risks and when they are selling themselves short. By having the main characters constantly act their ages, not only are there limitations on story and character growth, but it fails to resonate with audiences. If Rugrats was intended to be a show both kids and adults could relate to, this approach was absolutely not the ideal choice for that demographic. You can't just have one foot in the door for a certain age group and the other one stepping out for another. A good kids show written for both kids and adults in mind should always be an open space for writers to be adventurous and explorative when it comes to dealing with new ideas. Plus this is the type of audience that wants to see something beyond the comfort level. There have been episodes of Rugrats, like the PBS Kids edutainment show, Arthur, where difficult topics were covered, such as neglect, loss of a pet or family member, jealousy, generational differences and of course, child growth and developmental milestones. There have even been episodes that deal with fears adults struggle with and new experiences that come with each stage in life. Even most impressive was that there have been holiday specials that focus on Hanukah and Passover and their religious significance, something that not very many shows at the time were covering. Being open to topics like these make room for both kids and adults to have a dialogue with one another.  Because early childhood development is the seed that shapes how we grow up as our earliest experiences shape us, our perception of others and the world around us, it makes more sense that character driven plots were the best way to construct an episode of a show like Rugrats. ​Playing it safe with very little for the characters to do eventually alienates viewers and thus, that is why Paul Germain had the right idea all along. Even so, when it came to Angelica, her role wasn't solely to be a one-dimensional bully as mentioned earlier, but rather to represent a figure of the type of kid everyone has to deal with at times. As children grow up, they will always encounter a bully. Contrary to some of the stereotypes portraying bully characters over the years prior to Rugrats and other shows afterwards, there are underlying reasons why some children lash out the way they do. Over simplifying or dodging the subject altogether is not only playing storytelling safely, but it's also denying the reality of the world we live in. (I would like to delve into the topic of bully/brat characters in kids shows in a separate blog post sometime because I think it's a topic deserving of its own post). 
              With all that has been said and done and how well Rugrats aged as a pop cultural icon, in the end, it was Paul Germain's values as a storyteller that made it stand the test of time. With all due respect to Arlene Klasky, who undeniably had a brilliant idea for a television show, her concepts sounded good on paper, but Germain had ideas to help take her concept up another step further. It was unfortunate that Klasky and Germain failed to find common ground, but one can't deny that it's one thing to have a good idea on your hands. It's a whole world of difference to build up on it. Going off of Klasky's approach, there would have left very little room for character development and growth due to limitations on plotlines as was the case with the later seasons. Germain had all the right pieces in mind that fit into crafting good stories that would resonate with the show's respective audience. With an understanding of real world examples, such as studies related to the subject matter that the series centers around and personal experiences along with comprehending who the show is for, those are all important factors that contributes to both a show's quality and increased level of success in the long run. Stories can teach us about our struggles and shed them in a different light when delved into correctly, inspiring viewers to ask themselves the right questions and reflect on their own situations. By playing it safe and shunning other suggestions to further improve your concept as well as knowing less about who your target audience is, you not only put limitations on the potential of your ideas, but also on yourself as a writer. The more explorative you become with your concept and how it relates to the real world along with knowing what kind of stories your audiences are hoping to see, the better rounded you become as a creator. Your concept will grow and flourish, reaching its full potential. As with any creative medium, it will always be a continuing process that no one ever stops learning from because our experiences never stop shaping us and endless knowledge is always being spread around. You yourself will never stop learning. It's either you're open to it or you just stick to what is already familiar to you. By the latter, you will have many missed opportunities. By the former, you will constantly be exposed to them and those new opportunities and insights are what you give your audiences in return. 
6 Comments
Samuel Brent
11/22/2020 05:33:43 am

I have to say this is a very good read. Provides a lot of insight on the show, the differences between the early and latter half, and what makes a good story even in a show aimed at children.

Having watched the entirety of Rugrats a year ago, i do agree that the peak is Season 1 to 3. The writing is superb, there's a lot of interesting ideas explored, the characters are likeable and well developed, and it's genuinely charming. Even with this said though, i still enjoy Season 4 to 9 for what they are. More specifically 4 to 6, as 7 to 9 in particular aren't all that great. There's still plenty of good content to be found and a part of me inside does enjoy the more laid back and simple tone, but I don't blame you and others for not being very fond of this era. I'm thinking of doing a retrospective on Rugrats someday and I do want to speak out my mind on why I like the latter half. Again I agree with this article and I agree on the early portion being better, I'm just saying. I'll see if I can somehow share this article because this is a genuinely good effort.

Reply
Danielle C. Mesa link
12/5/2020 11:29:16 am

Hi Samuel,
Thanks for reading the article and for your comment. Yes, feel free to share it. I would love to read your own retrospect on Rugrats. :)

All the best,
Danielle

Reply
Samuel Brent
12/10/2020 12:37:14 pm

I do want to leave one more comment, though I might leave another one someday. My first comment could have been better. I tend to feel personally conflicted on these types of posts on my first read, especially when it's about something I love both personally and critically. The main reason being that the effort, time and writing is so well done and inspiring that it's a genuine surprise that it's an opinion at the end of the day. It sounds more like a fact (or factual template) that should be taken seriously by everyone reading this. Posts like this often scare me because they challenge my own opinion on a certain property, leading to me questioning if I have what it takes to become a potentially good writer and as a result ends with me having a conflicting impression. It wasn't until I gave it some time to breathe and calm myself down that I start to fully appreciate what I've read back there. Therefore, my last impression ends with me thinking 'you know what, I'll be okay.'

If you want to know something interesting, Arlene Klasky has mellowed in more recent years. In fact, The Trial is now her personal favourite episode purely because it was something new and different, something that wasn't seen before. In retrospect, she seemed like as if a company had a protective mother controlling them just to keep the kids safe, which was the norm to expect from parents in the 90s. Trying to sugarcoat their kids as much as possible. Now I don't want to sound like Arlene Klasky was entirely in the wrong, as I do think combining both her and Germain's intentions would have made Rugrats reach its fullest potential, which is why I'm personally looking forward to the reboot when it happens (By the way, are you looking forward to the reboot?). It's just that it's easy to see how her having total control at the time didn't allow Rugrats to challenge its target audience as consistently as it did when Paul was around. I don't even want to say Rugrats after Season 3 was entirely what Arlene wanted. Angelica was still around and as much of a fun foil to the babies as usual (though she is noticeably nicer this time around), and the new writers hired did seem like they genuinely liked Rugrats and wanted to continue what it did well, hence why you still have a lot of episodes, particularly from 4 to 6, that offered good content to both kids and adults. Remember the episode when Tommy got his finger cut and a bit of blood came out? That must of caught a lot of kids and even adults off guard at the time. Fantastic stuff. Even episodes that don't necessarily have the best storytelling do try to make up for it in other factors, like morals regarding responsibility, ethnic diversity, how there's more to family than just blood-related, and etc. Some of these are admittedly nothing special, but others were very progressive for a children's cartoon at the time, thus why I still respect the show even at its weakest.

The part where you said it wasn't so much the new characters is absolutely correct. I still remember when I first started getting into Season 6 that I was thinking in my mind that I wasn't going to like Dil much. After watching a number of episodes, I was honestly surprised by how much I enjoyed his presence, especially in episodes like I Do, an episode me and mum watched together and found really funny and charming. Now I have a lot of reasons why I like Dil, and to a lesser extent Kimi and Kira, but I'll save them for another time as I want to focus more on Angelica.

I've been noticing a lot of people nowadays expressing their dislike for Angelica as a character. How she is mean to the babies, how she only exists to be a foil and nothing else, how annoying she is at times, etc. It's almost like a good chunk of people nowadays are Arlene Klaskys in of themselves, if not much worse because Arlene has grown to love Angelica by the time the first movie came out. It's just something I've noticed which upsets me considering that she's my favourite character. She's just a joy to watch. Then again, I've grown to dislike most cartoon 'critics' nowadays which is why I'm kind of happy no one has done a proper retrospective. I'm a recently growing comic writer (as well as games designer and animator), and Rugrats is one of the huge inspirations for me and my personal work.

I think that's everything I want to say. I know it's a lot, especially for a comment, but I was left unsatisfied with the first comment, so I wanted to get as much meaningful out of my chest as possible to give it justice, as well as offer a differing perspective. Overall, I respect your opinion majorly because I don't see this level of quality out of most people nowadays, and the level of intelligence is clear proof of someone having studied hard during school/college/uni years. I would be happy to give your other blogs a fair read, as they look to have just as much effort put into them. Sorry if this is starting to sound like glowing praise, but trust me when I

Samuel Brent
12/10/2020 11:22:32 pm

Sorry about making another comment. It turns out there's a limit to how many words I can write with nothing to alert me before submitting. There isn't much more but here's the rest.

Sorry if this is starting to sound like glowing praise, but trust me when I say this. I hardly give glowing praise nowadays. One last thing to point out is I came across another blog review just after reading this. It's a very good read as well with a lot of depth and substance. I've recently shared this post to him and got a positive response out of it. Here's the link. https://feelinganimatedblog.wordpress.com/2019/08/18/series-review-rugrats-1991-2004/

Oh and his first name happens to be Paul. Who doesn't love coincidences?

Danielle C. Mesa
12/26/2020 07:03:27 pm

Hey Samuel,
Thanks for sharing this piece of info about Arlene Klasky's current mindset on Angelica. I've noticed it, too that most people when they think back on the series, they've taken so much issue with Angelica more so now than it seems they did in previous years and I'm on the same page as you are. If you start thinking about it, she's one of the main aspects that made Rugrats a fun show to watch. Just think of what other shows would have been like without their bully characters like Roger from Doug or Helga from Hey Arnold! just to name a few. Honestly, cartoon 'critics' lately seem less interested in critiquing fairly and more interested in appeasing a certain audience just to play on the safe side.

As for the reboot, I'd have to say I'm a tad iffy about it on account I tend to be quite picky with reboots in hopes that they are done right and that the creators have the original fans in mind along with the new ones they are trying to attract. But seeing Arlene Klasky and Paul Germain appear to have moved past their differences since the '90s, I think the reboot has a great deal of potential.

Once again, I appreciate your comments and thanks for sharing the post. I greatly enjoyed reading Paul Astell's review on the series as he gave some brilliant and thoughtful insights especially on the characters.

Also as one aspiring comic writer to another, I wish you all the best in your pursuits.

Have a Happy 2021!

Reply
Samuel Brent
1/17/2021 08:13:09 am

Happy new 2021 to you as well. I'm interested to read what you have to write about bully characters in shows. Sounds informative. :)

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    About

    Ever (re)discovered new facts about any art form or part of pop culture that you thought you knew before and realized there might be more to the story than what meets the eye? The Blog section debunks common expectations and assumptions in the art world.



    Archives

    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    February 2020
    September 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017

    Categories

    All
    16th Century
    1920's
    1990's
    19th Century
    20th Century
    21st Century
    2D Animation
    3D Animation
    Andrew Lloyd Webber
    Animation
    Anime
    Antimo Magnotta
    Art Deco
    Art Schools
    Arts Of Japan
    Art Style
    Bach
    Bible
    Bright Sun Films
    Broadway
    Caillebotte
    Cartoons
    Cats Musical
    C.F. Payne
    Charles Baudelaire
    Child Development
    Childhood
    Children's Books
    Chris Oatley
    Classical
    Classical Music
    Classic Art
    Classic Arts Showcase
    Classics
    Comics
    Craftmanshi
    Craftsmanship
    Creativity
    Dada
    Degas
    Disney
    Envy
    Fisher Price
    Fred Rogers
    Gene Luen Yang
    Genesis 4:1-16
    Graphic Novel
    Imagination
    Impressionism
    Indie
    Intellectual Development
    Italy
    Japan
    Jean Piaget
    Jerome Bruner
    Josh Gressel
    Klasky-Csupo
    Kyoto Animation
    Lettering
    Lev Vygotsky
    Litertaure
    Lloyd E. Rigler
    Manga
    Man Ray
    Marc Brown
    Maurice Sendak
    Memorabilia
    Michelangelo
    Mindfulness
    Mixed Media
    Modern
    Modern Art
    Monet
    Mosaic
    Mozart
    Mozart Effect
    MTV
    Museum Of Fine Arts Boston
    Music
    Musical Theater
    NHK World Japan
    Nostalgia
    Oatley Academy
    Old Testament
    Paul Germain
    Philosophy
    Photography
    Pixar
    Pop Art
    Pop Culture
    Psychology
    Recovery
    Renaissance
    Renoir
    Retail Archaeology
    Retro
    Rome
    Screen Savers
    Seven Deadly Sins
    Sistine Chapel
    Socrates
    Spiritual
    Stan Prokopenko
    Steven Spielberg
    Structures
    Stylizing
    Surrealism
    Takashi Murakami
    The Mark Of Beauty
    Tile
    Toy Industry
    Toys
    Toys R Us
    Traditional Art
    T.S. Eliot
    VABeach
    Vintage
    Vinyl
    Windows-95

    RSS Feed

Home

Blog

Writings 

About

Contact

 © 2015-2020 Danielle Catherine Mesa