Aventuras en pañales

I used to love "The Rugrats". Before they became unbearably popular. Before Dil came. Before David Doyle died. Before the movies. Before . .. you get the picture.

Why? Very simple. The initial Rugrats was a great show.

When the show premiered, in 1991, with "Tommy's First Birthday", nobody could've guess how far it would go. It had a simple premise: what life as a baby was like.

As the show began to climb, the jokes and the show itself began to become polished. The animation was horrid - but who cares? If the show's enjoyable, then I won't hate it for a single quality. Besides, the scribbles that made up the animation added to the whimisical feel of the show.

The show was, at first, intellegent, with jokes and plotlines that both kids and adults could relate to. Media references abounded. For example, in "Showdown at Teeter-Totter Gulch", a Stetson-wearing Tommy faces off against the "Junkfood Kid" (played by Nancy Cartwright), recalling "High Noon" and numerous Leone westerns. In "The Booster Shot", Chucky's doctor is named "Dr. Lecter", a reference to the flesh-eating psychiatrist from "The Silence of the Lambs". The episode with Dean (Angelica's love interest) spoofs James Dean in "Rebel Without A Cause". "The Dog Groomer" recalls "The Terminator", "The Mysterious Mr. Fiend" spoofs "Frankenstein", Dr. Lipschitz (Tony Jay) is a Sigmund Freud-esque child psychologist, and numerous others are similarly intellegent.

Also, the characters were well-developed and likeable. At this point, the dialogue was great. Not only the kids, but the adults. The adults were intellegent, had emotions, and were very realisitc. They made many of the jokes, and were interesting, rather than the no-dimensional shells they become.

The show's popularity began to grow in 1992, but it ended abruptly in 1994, when Paul Germaine left the show.

(Continued in Part Two.)

This show started out good, fresh and funny - with a simple premise. What life looks like through the eyes of a baby.

It had good material and fine animation,, but completely lost the plot with it's 1997 return and the two feature films.

Once upon a time I liked Tommy, Chuckie, Phil, Lil and Anjelica, but with the new voices, and characters, I couldn't care less.

When Rugrats hit the scene, I instantly loved it. I was 7 years old when the first episodes aired, and it was a great show. I couldn't get enough of Tommy, Chuckie, Phil, Lil & Angelica. It was great and had lots of good episodes. Then something terrible happened. For no apparent reason whatsoever, the creators decided it would be a good idea to give Tommy a brother and make a movie. What a horrible decision. Dill added NOTHING to the plot of the show except being ridiculously annoying and ruining all of the flow of the main characters. Also around this time, the writers decided they needed to take the more adult-type themes out of the show entirely and make this show as if it should be shown on Nick Jr. instead of Nickelodeon. I will never understand why they changed the show so dramatically towards their extremely younger demographic group. Rugrats had plenty of older kids and even teenagers and some adults watching regularly. Why pander to your youngest viewers who would watch the TV no matter what show was on? They lost me when they added Dill. However, I did view the show after the 2nd movie because my mom had in-home daycare and they would be watching it. The character of Chuckie's step sister was even worse than Dill. That series of episodes was even more unwatchable than the ones with just Dill. I was just saddened watching that and seeing how downhill Rugrats had fallen. It's a shame that Nickelodeon and their creative writers, did this to basically every show that was good in the early 90's. Am I right? Look at what happened to their best shows, they were either canceled or changed so dramatically that they no longer resembled that great show you once loved. Doug was sold to Disney and turned into crap. Hey Dude was canceled in it's prime. Rocko's Modern Life was given the boot for no reason. Angry Beavers was given the axe because of a disagreement with the creators wanting to keep the show the funny. Nickelodeon from 1990-1995 was great, then it just fell apart and we got stuck with a bunch of garbage mostly after that that has never recovered into anything watchable. I DVR Rugrats every night at 5:00 and 5:30 AM. Sometimes they are the original episodes and I love watching them now. Other times they are the newer ones and those just suck and I immediately delete those.

Rugrats was one of those cartoons I grew up watching as a kid. Before SpongeBob, Nickelodeon had this show which last for 14 years and it was successful. It was one of the original Nicktoons to be produced. The series follow a group of babies going on adventures by themselves without their parents knowing. As a show itself, its not perfect. I loved the earlier seasons the most especially before the 1998 movie. Come season 6, the quality did became lesser, but it was still good. Seasons 7-9, however, are really boring to watch, since there's recycled stories, and uninspiring writing. It can get repetitive in general, in which most of it have to involved the babies doing something, Angelica try to stop whatever they're doing, etc. Animation wise, it is trippy and art style is unique at the time that it was never on-model. Writing was at its peak during seasons 2-3. Early episodes have its bump, but still had its charm. Seasons 4-6 while weaker in writing still had its Rugrats feel for the most part., even if the latter does become to feel tired. Once you get to the post-Paris movie seasons, the writing fell apart and you'll be disinterested for 70% of the time. The characters are likable for the most part unless we're talking about Angelica and maybe her parents. Voice acting can be obnoxious at times, but they still pull it off during emotional moments. IMO, it's still one of Klasky Csupo's magnum opus. I only recommend seasons 1-6 though and the first movies are classic (avoid the crossover movie with The Wild Thornberrys).

I used to love "The Rugrats". Before they became unbearably popular. Before Dil came. Before David Doyle died. Before the movies. Before . .. you get the picture.

Why? Very simple. The initial Rugrats was a great show.

When the show premiered, in 1991, with "Tommy's First Birthday", nobody could've guess how far it would go. It had a simple premise: what life as a baby was like.

As the show began to climb, the jokes and the show itself began to become polished. The animation was horrid - but who cares? If the show's enjoyable, then I won't hate it for a single quality. Besides, the scribbles that made up the animation added to the whimisical feel of the show.

The show was, at first, intelligent, with jokes and plot lines that both kids and adults could relate to. Media references abounded. For example, in "Showdown at Teeter-Totter Gulch", a Stetson-wearing Tommy faces off against the "Junkfood Kid" (played by Nancy Cartwright), recalling "High Noon" and numerous Leone westerns. In "The Booster Shot", Chucky's doctor is named "Dr. Lecter", a reference to the flesh-eating psychiatrist from "The Silence of the Lambs". The episode with Dean (Angelica's love interest) spoofs James Dean in "Rebel Without A Cause". "The Dog Groomer" recalls "The Terminator", "The Mysterious Mr. Fiend" spoofs "Frankenstein", Dr. Lipschitz (Tony Jay) is a Sigmund Freud-esque child psychologist, and numerous others are similarly intelligent.

Also, the characters were well-developed and likable. At this point, the dialogue was great. Not only the kids, but the adults. The adults were intelligent, had emotions, and were very realistic. They made many of the jokes, and were interesting, rather than the no-dimensional shells they become.

The show's popularity began to grow in 1992, but it was put on hiatus in 1994, when Paul Germaine left the show.