Regarding Continuity

D

Dr. Squarepants

New member
The United States has seen countless animated programs over the years, most of which have had little to no continuity. However, over the past couple of decades, more and more animated programs have been embracing continuity and have made use of ongoing plots. I wanted to create this thread so that we could all discuss the importance of continuity.

I know very little about the golden age of animation, but back then, animated programs seemed like they were meant to induce little more than a laugh; that?s all people really cared about. The stories were seldom connected to one another and the characters didn?t have deep interpersonal struggles, yet nobody seemed to mind. I understand that things were different back then, as it was all about theatrical shorts; having simple animated programs that involved stand-alone plots permitted each audience to enjoy it just as much as the next audience. It was funny seeing the rabbit outwit the hunter or seeing a salty sailor beat the crap out of everybody, and it was still funny when those theatrical shorts made their way to television, but now-a-days, a lot of people seem to have become obsessed with anime and believe that animated programs that lack complex stories involving continuity are somehow inferior.

I have to wonder if they are on to something.

I don?t wish to give the wrong impression; I am not trying to say that continuity makes an animated program better. However, in this day and age where marketing has become so important, I have to wonder if continuity allows networks to have more success. Take ?Avatar: The Last Airbender? for example. That series used continuity nearly as well as any other animated program that has ever been created, and what did it get to show for it? A ton of merchandise and potentially three live-action theatrical movies directed by M. Night Shyamalan. That is where the money is. Animated programs such as Pok?mon have made a killing; is it a coincidence that many of these animated programs that have made so much money have involved ongoing plots that make the audience want to tune in and see what happens next?

Now, I understand what some people might say. Continuity isn?t necessary to sell merchandise and get high ratings; a certain yellow sponge would prove that many times over. However, networks have tried their best to create the next ?SpongeBob SquarePants? and it just hasn?t happened; I am nothing more than an uneducated fan and I can?t possibly determine the reason for this, but I have to wonder what role continuity has in the level of financial success that an animated program has.

I suppose I?ve rambled on long enough. I hope others will share their thoughts on this issue, though to help, here are a few questions.

What do you believe are the pros of having continuity in an animated program?

What do you believe are the cons of having continuity in an animated program?

Hypothetically speaking, if two animated programs had the exact same quality and were both equally entertaining to watch, but one animated program had continuity and the other animated program had no continuity, which animated program would you choose to watch?

I believe that these three questions should help get some discussion started, though you?re more than welcome to add any thoughts you have regarding continuity.
 
I think one pro is that it makes you feel for the characters more, it makes them feel more like a person if they went through hardship and got over it. Also I like to see writers and such write consistently with certain scenes. Also you get to see them grow up in way, like a character that was a jerk at the beginning of the story, but later has some turn of events that soften him up a bit show how good a writier staff is.



I think the one con is to make sure there isn't like time paradox, an oversight, or anything else. After all is something condradicts with what was done previously happened, said, or some other kind of error, people like us will be ranting about it on blogs, and message boards.



I think I would go for the one with continuity, I prefer story that are chained together, instead of shows that have some little reset button. Though to be fair for the comedy, I prefer a non continuity story, but for an action show, it has to be one with continuity.
 
I find a few things are off about this statement. One is that Avatar's ratings are low when you compare them to what other shows on Nickelodeon get, and from what I heard, the merchendising didn't do that great either (due to Mattel's handling of it) As far as the live-action movies go, well, I'll believe them when I see them; this is Nick's first venture into a serious action show, so I can see them pushing it big with movies and stuff, but if the movies bomb, then I doubt we'll be getting any more movies from any future action shows (provided the movies get made)

Second is that Pokemon's success really stems from the games and card game. The show helped, and was pretty popular back in the 90s, but these days the show's ratings are forgettable while the games keep rolling along.. also I'm sure people will say Pokemon's continuity isn't the strongest

As for continuity itself, I have to be honest, I prefer it, and really don't care for shows that don't utilize it. Pointless stuff like Spongebob is okay to watch when I find myself in fornt of a TV when I'm working out or whatever, but it's never made me go out of my way to watch it compared to shows with a plot have. I'd rather be playing a game or spending my time elsewhere, and I really only go out of my way to watch TV for shows like 24, Heroes, and heavy-continuity ones)

Also, as much praise as Samurai Jack seems to get, I disliked it due to the fact the plot and characters litterally went nowhere, and found it boring. So in terms of a "good show" with continuity VS one without one, I'd have to say the one with continuity. All of my favorite cartoons are action shows with contuinty in them, or comedy shows with heavy continuity in them (though those tend to be the live-action variety, like Ned's Declassified, since the only continuity-heavy comedy cartoon I can think of is maybe As Told By Ginger. While shows like FOP do have continuity, it's not in the focus)

Now, when it comes to action shows with continuity, I'm even pickier and prefer ones that have a focused goal, or at least strong reoccurring plotlines (Shows like W.I.T.C.H. having a focused goal, and shows like Danny Phantom/Ben 10/Spectacular-Spiderman/Xiaolin Showdown having strong reoccuring plotlines) I'm against filler episodes and find them a waste.

So in short, there's very few shows I truly enjoy :sweat: Maybe that can be considered a con when it comes to having continuity. I get spoiled by people by Greg Weisman that most other shows seem boring and uninteresting to me.
 
Sorry. :sad: I’m just trying to get some discussion started.

Perhaps, but I don’t believe that the ratings were bad. It may not have been the most successful animated program on the network, but it was still successful.

Perhaps, but they seem to be selling well enough to warrant additional merchandise. I don’t believe they would keep creating things if nobody was buying them.

…Which were popularized by the animated program. The games may indeed be more popular now-a-days, but they obviously wouldn’t have taken off, let alone exist, if the animated program wasn’t successful.
 
I think it boils down to this: serials work if you've got a story that's worth serialising. The episodic structure of B:TAS bugs me a little, but I'd rather watch an episode of that than sit through a season of Avatar or WITCH, both of which are a tad thinly-plotted for my taste.
 
I prefer all the shows I watch to have at least a little continuity. If nothing is ever gained or lost from episode to episode, what's the point of following the series? (...Other than to laugh, if it's a comedy)

But I mean, say I get a show's season on DVD. I might watch a few episodes, and then if I realize that there aren't any interesting developments in the story, I might lose interest sooner, and not finish watching the whole set for a few months, you know? On the other hand, a show where we occasionally find out new things about the characters, with story and relationship developments (even if they're very minor), will hold my attention for much longer. That doesn't mean we have to learn a character's life story every episode, but the odd tidbit about their personality is fun to learn, and small continuity things like having a character get something in one episode and still having it in a later one make the show much more rewarding, for me at least.
 
Don't worry about it, I just wanted to clarify it a bit for my post, since serial works don't bring in the cash that straight comedic shows do, which led into there not being many shows I like being created.
 
Are you sure that?s right? I know ?SpongeBob SquarePants? has made a boatload of money, but networks have been unsuccessful in their attempts to create the next ?SpongeBob SquarePants?. Even ?Chowder?, with all of its critical acclaim, receives fewer ratings than ?Total Drama Island?. The number of animated programs that make use of continuity has been increasing over the past couple of decades; I don?t believe they would be increasing if they weren?t financially successful.
 
I guess it depends on how much continuity we're talking about, because even Spongebob has a bit of it (new/reoccuring characters like Plankton, Squilliam, and Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy) but something more serial like Avatar didn't get as good ratings... but then Zoey 101 did, though that's live-action and not a cartoon.

There's also the fact shows like Spongebob keep high ratings even on reruns, while Avatar doesn't (or even get barely any reruns at all) So there's a lot of stuff that factors into it. Networks haven't made a new Spongebob yet, but Tak and Barnyard seem to do well enough for them in the ratings.
 
I prefer continuity for more serious action-type shows. But I like when the episodes are relatively self-contained, yet play a part in the overall plot, like the Spectacular Spider-Man. When episodes just blend one into the next, that can be good, but often there are parts where pacing suffers and you watch an episode feeling that it was only a half-episode. I like feeling that I got my time's worth after watching something.

As for comedies though I don't need any real continuity to enjoy it, it just needs to make me laugh.
 
If the show is simplistic (ala Spongebob, Mickey Mouse, Looney Tunes) in nature, then lack of continuity is appropriate.

As for the pros, well it helps to determine which writers are the most talented. See, anyone can tell a great story if they have no limitations, but only the talented writers can tell a great story no matter which rules and limitations are in place.



I think you underestimate how successful it's been considering:
- Most Nicktoons outside Spongebob Squarepants and Fairly Oddparents tend to get canceled before the writers can finish their story. Avatar ended on the writer's term rather than ending of cancelation.

- It goes without saying the Spongebob Squarepants is the top Nicktoon. Fairly Oddparents and Jimmy Neutron are fairly (pun not intended) popular as well, yet it was Avatar which got the more constant DVD releases (Constant single disc and box set releases). I mean, you'd think that Fairly Oddparents would have been given regular volume sets sooner.
 
Plenty of Nickelodeon shows have had endings, or at least lasted more than a couple seasons. Though with shows like Catscratch, there's not really any story for them to conclude to be honest; the kind of shows that do, like Danny Phantom and Jimmy Neutron, have endings (and all the live-action ones they've made in recent years).

Also, from what I've read, Nickelodeon had a contract agreement for three seasons right off the bat. They banked on it because it was their first venture into action shows. It was going to go three seasons regardless of how popular it was.

Avatar has an obvious DVD market, FOP doesn't, though they are starting to release FOP DVDs. Invader Zim also got DVDs released; the show's ratings were bad, but there was clearly a DVD market for them. A lot of unsuccessful shows get a DVD release, and vice-versa.
 
Still, you'd think the much more successful shows would get a constant DVD release almost immediately (Like say 2006). And hasn't ATLA done better on the DVD front than Zim?

And last I heard, the show did well in the ratings in the last week despite the lack of reruns.

It may not be the top show, but it does better than it's given credit for.



When trying to get a kid to try a new food item, do you honestly expect him/her to take to all new foods instantly? It's simply a matter of giving the audience time to get use to serialized animated programs and having more than one on a regular basis (such as the programs that Weisman pitched to Nickelodeon which he said would make for a good companion program to Avatar). After all, did Family Guy catch on to the audience from the get go? Nope it took a cancelation and 3 DVD sets to tell Fox that animated shows outside the Simpsons could work on primetime.

And last I checked, The KidsWB's highest rated show prior to it's wrap up was The Spectacular Spider-Man (among a line up of shows that are light on or free of continuity).
 
Continuity is a good thing, but it's not completely necessary. Even serious shows don't really need it. Look at The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits.

I'm of the opinion that if a shows does have continuity, there should be a limit. Batman: TAS is a good example. It gives the occasional deep story, but you don't have to commit yourself to the entire series.
 
Continuity works on a case-by-case basis and in different extremes and that's how I like it. I do wish more shows would have continuity, but it's not vital as long as the show succeeds as entertainment. I think it is vital though that any show that decides to use continuity end each season in way where, if the show gets axed, fans aren't left hurting too badly. No one wants to invest time in a show and then be left with half a storyline. I think Avatar's Water Book did this well, by placing a subquest (getting to the North Pole) ahead of the main goal (defeating the Firelord). If the show had ended there, that wouldn't have been as terrible as ending it with the second book-- the fallen city and a dead avatar. Gargoyles also managed to end each season in way where, even if the show didn't get picked up, there was still a level of completeness. (Although that's kinda ruined by not having the second half of season two on DVD.)

I think the reason the next Spongebob hasn't been found is because Spongebob, the Power Rangers in the 90's, and the older Ninja Turtles series are cases of lightning striking. It's the right idea, at the right place, at the right time, with the right execution and a dash of luck. I think many companies set out to create the next monster hit and it just doesn't happen.
 
I'm a person who enjoys variety in life. Shows with and without continuity are fine with me. Although I'm of the opinion that continuity works best in live-action. Cartoons like Pokemon, for example, have solid continuity (despite what someone said earlier) but it is annoying that it's been 10 years and the characters haven't aged and the time period seems the same. Then, there's shows like The Simpsons that have been on for so long that various things have had to be retconned like turning Homer and Marge from `70s teenagers to `90s ones. In live-action you don't run into those problems. Characters age and only trivial things are usually retconned.
 
The reason why the next Spongebob hasn't been found is due to the lost art of patience. In the 1990s, networks didn't put a heavy load of expectations on their programs. They only expected programs to be simple success.

This decade, a show has to be an instant hit or it's regarded as crap. Spongebob is popular because it came out during a time when networks were patient. If the show was to come out this decade, then chances are that it would fail in the eyes of Nick.

Heck, Power Rangers wasn't even intended as a hit. It was made to be a 40 episode filler until Fox found their next hit.
 
Obviusly continuity is better, in fact I think a big part of appeal on anime is people saw continuity. In my country we got both american and japanese cartoons and I would always hate american ones because I knew He-Man would never catch skeletor and you'd never see the final battle of the turtles and shredder etc. However in anime I knew I'd eventually see a conclusion to the storyline.


Does a show need continuity? Not if its written well, look at BTAS. However its not that "continuity" itself makes the show better its seeing the characters evolve and storylines resolved not the same status-quo every episode.



Wrong. In Japan the games became so successfull they decided to make an animated show. When Nintendo finally decided to bring over Pokemon they knew it was going to be huge and they brought the Game with the anime/cards/merchandising not too far behind. So no, without the Anime the game would have still been a million seller. Did the anime help it? of course but the game would have been huge regardless.
 
Except we DID get to see the turtles have their final battle with Shredder...

Granted, their actual final battle involved Dregg, but there was the season 8 finale. :sweat:

But yes, I agree with you about that aspect of 80's action cartoons. Other than Transformers and TMNT, none of them had any continuity (and even those two had EXTREMELY thin ones), which made them feel a bit pointless in the end.

That's why I prefer the action cartoons nowadays (along with anime), because continuity actually rewards me for following the series, instead of making it so I could easily watch the first few episodes and then the last episodes with virtually no difference.
 
Back
Top