Is it unfair to judge shows based on their comparison to other shows?

T

theorginialmistake

New member
Something to think about. When Transformers Animated came out, I didn't like it at first, but it eventually grew on me.... a little bit. Some episodes were good, but there was also a lot of bad episodes as well. I think back to Beast Wars which, aside from some of the first season, was pretty much not only a great show, but easilly what I'd consider the best Transformer series ever. So I can't help but compare TF:A to Beast Wars whenever I'm watching it. I criticize the lack of adding permanent new characters, or for that matter, killing off established characters like Beast Wars did. Also, i criticize the fact the writing, characters, plot development and other factors aren't up to what Beast Wars had. So I can't help but wonder if that's fair to TF:A. I might feel the same way about it, but maybe if Beast Wars never existed I wouldn't be so hard on the show or have such high standards for it. But when all's said and done, I do enjoy the good episodes of TF:A, though I wonder if I never saw Beast Wars I would be as hard on the show for its faults as I am now (and maybe I would otherwise enjoy the episodes I don't as of now)

To make it a bit less about franchises, another example is W.I.T.C.H. (mostly the second season, anyway) I liked the writing, and the fact each episode developed the central plot, and there was just about no filler. Almost every episode ended or involved a plot twist that changed the status quo of the show and always kept you guessing where the story was going to go, who the real villain would be, and so forth. The use of powers was creative as were the characters themselves. Since then, I've often been annoyed that no other show I've seen has matched that level of writing (probably due to the fact it was thanks to Greg Weisman's talent), and have been disappointed when other action shows either do a "problem of the week" format, or don't do many plot twists, have standard writing, and etcetera. In other words, the problem isn't a show is bad, per se, just that it's not as good as what has been seen before.

So, the point being, is it fair to judge a show based upon the expectations you gained from watching other shows and be disappointed when they don't reach the bar, or should there not be a bar other shows should strive for at all?
 
I compare plot centered shows to plot centered shows and episodic shows to episodic shows. I also think about the style of the show and it's demographic. If they're following a similar format or style, comparisons are inevitable.

But that doesn't mean I think the show sucks because it's not like the other show, I just think it's fun seeing those differences and similarities as well as how the show could possibly be improved (If need be) or continue on the path I enjoy.
 
Of course it is - if a cartoon isn't at least on par with its predecessors, then there's not really much point in it being made. That's what creators should bear in mind if they want to push things forwards, not keep a consistant level of mediocrity.

The only trouble comes when people make obviously silly comparisons, like all those anime fans comparing Spongebob negatively to Grave of the Fireflies or whatever.
 
Like all things in life, the quality of a show is relative. Because it is relative, you need a base score, and that's where other shows come in. These benchmark shows can be anything, but they have to be well known to your audiance. Using a recent predecessor makes sure everyone has seen or can see your benchmark. This makes your opinion valid, provided you back it up with examples from the show you are reviewing.
 
It's only unfair when the 2 shows being compared clearly have absolutely nothing in common. For example, when I was on TV.com, some hater on the Kappa Mikey forum attempted to blast KM by saying that "it wasn't as good as Naruto." What the frig kind of stupid statement is that? What in the blue ocean do Naruto and Kappa Mikey have in common that one can claim that 1 show is inferior to the other? It's like saying that Chowder isn't as good a crime drama as CSI: Miami.

Shows with similar traits, sensibilities or which are clearly in the same genre and meant to attract the same audience, however, are fair game.
 
It would nice if the human brain allowed you to grade things on an absolute, one-to-ten scale without being influenced by external information. Giving this show an 8, that show a 5, independently ... that'd be great. The human brain just doesn't work like that.

Especially in cases of shows that are related or similar, your brain is going to call out the memories (odds are with rose-colored glasses on) and do the comparing. I only watched one episode of 'The Batman'; I thought Batman: TAS was far superior in art and writing and completely dismissed the show. After JL/JLU, Teen Titans was unwatchable (though I could manage to listen to most episodes).

It's entertainment ... it's totally subjective, on the personal level and between the various examples of entertainment. If ya like it, ya like it, if ya don't, ya don't. :)
 
At first I was one of those people who did juge a show becuase of how much a like it is to one of my other favorites. Like Jumpin Lee or whatever it was on Cartoon Network, it was so much like American Dragon Jake Long. Now I'm not sure which was supposed to come out first, but American Dragon was put out first. I liked that show and when I saw previews for that other one I was all WTF is that?! Its just a clone of my other favorite show on the Disney channle. So I didn't watch it for a year, but one day when I had nothing better to do I decided to give it a chance and I enjoyed it some what. Since than I learned not to juge shows based on other series that I like.
 
It's impossible to judge something without comparing it to something else. People model their standards based on their experiences.

So to answer the question in the title. No.
 
In animation Juniper Lee was more unique,but it resembled Amdrag too much.We know which show lasted longer and we know which one probably did better in ratings. *cough*Amdrag*cough* ^^ But it isn't fair to judge shows based on similiarites.Even though Juniper Lee had a lot of'em.
 
That's a good question. I don't think that it is unfair to judge shows based on other shows since we do based our opinions from other experiences from other series. However, I think that it would only work if the shows that you compare are similar enough to each other. For example, you could compare Batman Beyond to Batman: The Animated Series since they both are different Batman series. For totally different series, such as Avatar and Chowder, a comparison would make no sense at all. Of course, I also feel that it is important to look at a show's own merits and to not completely overshadow it with another show if it isn't as good as other series.
 
It's impossible, but is it fair. I have to say no. This is especially true with franchises. I mean what's the point of making a new series from a franchise if it has to be almost exactly like the previous series, especially if it's set in a different universe with different rules? That's just being completely unoriginal.
 
Depends on genre, timeframe, and goal of the show. You can't compare an episode show like He-Man to a story based one like Avatar, nor is a comparison between Transformers Animated and Gurren Lagann able to hold much water because of different objectives. You have to pair like-minded, like goal shows.

And remember- Show A never stinks because it isn't show B. Ex- Teen Titans doesn't stink because it isn't BTAS.
 
The AmDrg/JunLee is my most hated comparison. Basically because I really didn't like Amdrag and much favored JL. But drop a show in the "duel" catagory and I will most certainly dislike it. Blue Dragon was the only exception. Seriously, the exceptions I make "disprove the rule". I can hate shows as a group,,, but will sometimes like a show that should be in a hated group. So I really have no idea.
 
Expecting it to be of good quality is reasonable, but expecting it to be a carbon copy is pointless. Let's say that down the line that there is another Spider-Man cartoon and the quality level is more than decent, but not in the same style as Spectacular Spider-Man. Is it bad because of the quality or bad because it doesn't copy The SSM.
 
Back
Top