Toon Zone Talkback - Best New Animated Series of 2009: "Olivia"

Yo Gabba Gabba isn't drug-influenced; the creators and most of the crew are devout Mormons and don't even drink caffeinated beverages.


Personally, I would've given this to "Dinosaur Train" myself.
 
But then, most of its competitors are for 8 year olds. When we're talking about TV cartoons I don't think it's fair to hold a young age demographic against it.
 
So that'd be a "No, I haven't ever watched this show" then?

Whether you agree with the choice or not, a show sucks or it doesn't no matter who it's aimed at. It seems to me that dismissing a show out of hand just because it's a pre-schooler show is considerably more foolish than selecting a pre-schooler show as the best new animated show in a year, and your citation of Yo Gabba Gabba! would seem to suggest to me that you already know this.

And why is the arbitrary age bracket enough to write it off entirely? Why stop with the pre-school shows? The new Iron Man and Wolverine cartoons are aimed at teens, which means they're "probably nothing to write home about." Why not limit it to Glenn Martin, DDS and The Goode Family and The Cleveland Show because they're aimed at adults, and must therefore be as far above IM:AA and W&tXM as those shows are above Olivia?
 
I have watched both shows (sick days aren't what they used to be with absolutely no interesting TV during the day now. Damn lack of game shows on USA) and Olivia just was boring to me. There can be good shows for younger kids (Arthur continually proves this), but Olivia is no Arthur.

Maybe it's just more due to my disdain of CG in animated TV shows combined with the lack of interest I have in it that just made me really wonder how this was picked.

Glenn Martin was an awful show and Goode Family honestly should have not been on ABC and maybe it could have stood a chance (the show needed more time to develop, but was finding its legs). ABC's total disdain of anything animated in prime-time outside of Christmas specials should have been a warning to all of what future the show would have on the network.


But back to the topic at hand, maybe it was a little blunt, but for the most part, shows aimed at younger audiences are just soft, they (the producers) know they don't have to work as hard to entertain and it shows.
 
I don't get this statement. Why are shows aimed at toddlers automatically in the "lazy producers" section? Why does it matter if it's "soft"? It's not suppose to be aimed beyond the age of six. Their entire purpose is to entertain and educate and while some series may handle it better then others, that there is an entirely subjective view. It's the same equivalent of how one feels for a cartoon aimed for adults - for example, you get one side who either loves a more mature take on adult themes or those who prefer gross out, black comedy-ish humors. It's the same target demographic, but how they do it is entirely different - who loves what is entirely subjective.
 
Olivia's audience is also about half the age of Arthur's. Arthur has the reputation of being a preschoolish show, when it's really more aimed at the 2nd grade set, which is a world of difference.

Olivia isn't going to change the world of prechool animation, but it's the best animated show on Nick Jr. in years. I personally find it very well written, imaginative, well animated, and relatable to it's main demographic while still being entertaining for everyone else. I like the calm, easygoing tone to the show too. It reminds me a bit of Little Bear meets Little Bill at times.

I'm pleseantly surprised that the show got this kind of props, I didn't think anyone was watching it.
 
Back
Top