I honestly can't believe Nickelodeon is still in business.

VG_Addict

Active Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
792
Honestly, I can't believe Nickelodeon is still in business with all the stupid decisions they've made.

They passed on Adventure Time, Ed Edd n Eddy, and Phineas and Ferb, which became HUGE hits for their competitors, and instead picked up Fanboy and Chum-Chum, Breadwinners, and Planet Sheen.

They gave Fred his own show, which, while I can see the logic behind it, as Fred was popular at the time, turned out to be a BIG mistake, as the show was nearly unwatchable.

They ruin their shows' legacies by running them into the ground, among other stupid decisions. They let Spongebob go on WAY too long, and gave the show 3 different spinoffs that nobody was asking for. They ran Rugrats into the ground, and gave it spin-offs nobody was asking for, along with terrible direct-to-DVD movies. They let Fairly Oddparents go on WAY too long, and introduced a bunch of new characters in a desperate attempt to keep the show relevant, and then made those awful live-action movies with Drake Bell, and that TERRIBLE Fairly Odder show on Paramount+.

If Nickelodeon didn't stumble onto Spongebob and Avatar, they would have gone out of business YEARS ago.
 

VG_Addict

Active Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
792
TMNT 2012 and Loud House were pretty popular too, last time I checked.

EDIT: ...Just noticed this thread in the Similar Threads. Why did you make a topic about the same thing twice?

I mean, that thread was made 3 years ago, so it's not like I made a similar thread right after making that one.

And this thread talks about Nickelodeon's bad decisions, while that one talks about Nickelodeon's content being bad.
 
Last edited:

VG_Addict

Active Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
792
Nickelodeon, a network for kids, should go out of business because you, an adult, don't like it? Somebody here doesn't understand business and it's not Nickelodeon.

I'm pushing back on these threads from now on. Hard. Hopefully it will discourage people from making them. Think before you post.
No, I don't think Nickelodeon should go out of business. I'm saying that I'm surprised Nickelodeon HASN'T gone out of business.

Nickelodeon could have had Adventure Time, Ed Edd n Eddy AND Phineas and Ferb. Now, you can argue that those shows wouldn't have been as successful or popular on Nickelodeon, but that doesn't change the fact that Nickelodeon passed on those shows, and they became HUGE hits for their competitors. Adventure Time basically revived Cartoon Network and became one of the best and most influential cartoons of the 2010s. What was Nickelodeon airing in the 2010s? Fanboy and Chum-Chum, Breadwinners, Planet Sheen, Bunsen Is a Beast, and Pig Goat Banana Cricket.
 

Fone Bone

Matt Zimmer
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
35,267
Location
Framingham, MA
No, I don't think Nickelodeon should go out of business. I'm saying that I'm surprised Nickelodeon HASN'T gone out of business.
Why? Kids watch it. It's extremely popular with them. It always has been. Also, most of Nickelodeon's most famous and successful programming since its inception has been live-action. I notice you ignore many of the hits and successes it's had there because it doesn't fit into your false narrative. Yes, Nickelodeon has animation troubles. Which is only a real problem if it were primarily a network for animation. It never has been.
 

VG_Addict

Active Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
792
Why? Kids watch it. It's extremely popular with them. It always has been. Also, most of Nickelodeon's most famous and successful programming since its inception has been live-action. I notice you ignore many of the hits and successes it's had there because it doesn't fit into your false narrative. Yes, Nickelodeon has animation troubles. Which is only a real problem if it were primarily a network for animation. It never has been.

I'm not ignoring them. It's just that Nickelodeon, at least since the late 2000s-early 2010s, has had more misses than hits.

Also, Nickelodeon's most famous and successful programming has been live-action? Are you really going to tell me that Drake and Josh and All That are more famous and successful than Spongebob, Rugrats, Fairly Oddparents, Jimmy Neutron, and The Loud House?
 

Fone Bone

Matt Zimmer
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
35,267
Location
Framingham, MA
Most networks do. It's not uncommon. Look at the cancelation list for many networks and a ton of shows don't last past a single season. It's not something that drives them out of business. One show fails, they replace it with another one. That's how it's always worked in the 80+ history of television. How do you not know this?
 

VG_Addict

Active Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
792
Most networks do. It's not uncommon. Look at the cancelation list for many networks and a ton of shows don't last past a single season. It's not something that drives them out of business. One show fails, they replace it with another one. That's how it's always worked in the 80+ history of television. How do you not know this?

The problem is, they're not replacing their failed shows with successful ones, or they actively sabotage their shows that COULD be successful.
 

90'sKid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
1,286
Location
Ohio
It still boggles my goggles that they passed up on shows like Phineas and Ferb or Adventure Time (for, of all things, Fanboy and Chum Chum, ugh).

I know with Ed Edd n Eddy it was a case of Nick wanting too much control over the show, they tended to be alot more micromanaging than CN was back in the 'day.

I cannot see the Ed Boys being on the network, it would be like breaking a fundamental law of the universe. Rugrats and Ed Edd n Eddy, airing back-to-back.

Sent from my 5004S using Tapatalk
 

JMTV

Welcome to Wally World!
Joined
Oct 2, 2020
Messages
3,859
Location
Miramar, FL
And that's a bad thing because......?

Nickelodeon made some very stupid decisions, but you can say the same thing with every network ever, including Cartoon Network and Disney. They also made bad decisions as Nickelodeon does, and DON'T try to tell me otherwise.

They let Spongebob go on WAY too long, and gave the show 3 different spinoffs that nobody was asking for. They ran Rugrats into the ground, and gave it spin-offs nobody was asking for,
Okay, first of all, I really hate to go on in this tangent, but I really hate the term "nobody asked for this" as if you speak for everybody, even though, you yourself, doesn't like it.

Secondly, you can use the term "nobody asked for this" for anything.

"Hey, who asked for an iPhone 13?"

Freaking NOBODY!!

The reason why they put it out is because they were selling it a consumer because they think there's a market for it. That's how business work.

If you as a consumer don't like it, then DON'T watch it nor support it. Is that simple.

Nickelodeon could have had Adventure Time, Ed Edd n Eddy AND Phineas and Ferb. Now, you can argue that those shows wouldn't have been as successful or popular on Nickelodeon, but that doesn't change the fact that Nickelodeon passed on those shows, and they became HUGE hits for their competitors.
Does that REALLY matter either way? Just be glad those came out and became hits instead of holding a grudge against a single network for passing them.

The problem is, they're not replacing their failed shows with successful ones, or they actively sabotage their shows that COULD be successful.
How the hell do you know that? Nobody knows if a show will succeeds or not as long is up to the viewers who are watching it. Hell, we don't know if Spongebob was going to be successful when it first came out. If the kids aren't tuning in consistently and support the show through merchandise, the show would've end years ago.

Whatever you like or not, Nickelodeon is a KIDS network, not adults. You may not like Nickelodeon's business decisions, and that's fine, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.
 

PF9

Putting Bleeps on a Streaming Show Is Stupid
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
2,740
Location
Ohio
Perhaps if Charter Communications take majority ownership of ParGlo, they can hire executives to Nick and other cable channels that will restore variety to the schedules, treat all original programs equally, and perhaps at Nick, cancel SpongeBob but permit it to craft a series finale that will do the show justice.

If this strategy is successful it could encourage other media companies to follow this approach with their cable channels.
 

VG_Addict

Active Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
792
How the hell do you know that? Nobody knows if a show will succeeds or not as long is up to the viewers who are watching it. Hell, we don't know if Spongebob was going to be successful when it first came out. If the kids aren't tuning in consistently and support the show through merchandise, the show would've end years ago.

Whatever you like or not, Nickelodeon is a KIDS network, not adults. You may not like Nickelodeon's business decisions, and that's fine, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.
Of course nobody knows whether a show will succeed. The point is, Nickelodeon doesn't even give their shows a chance. If a show isn't doing Spongebob numbers, which is an EXTREMELY unrealistic expectation for a show, they toss it aside.
 

Pooky

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
1,847
Location
UK
Something being an artistic misstep doesn't mean it's a business one. Rugrats didn't become a phenomenon until its later, lesser seasons started. Later seasons of Spongebob may have made it feel less special to older fans and animation buffs, but that doesn't mean it's devalued it as a brand; note how the second movie, in 2015 after many years of "Zombie Spongebob" or whatever the cool kids call the mediocre mid-seasons, made over twice as much as the "classic era" first movie. A lot of animation fans would have preferred a third season of Harvey Beaks over a tenth season of Fairly Odd Parents but would it have been a better commercial decision? Almost certainly not.
 

VG_Addict

Active Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
792
Something being an artistic misstep doesn't mean it's a business one. Rugrats didn't become a phenomenon until its later, lesser seasons started. Later seasons of Spongebob may have made it feel less special to older fans and animation buffs, but that doesn't mean it's devalued it as a brand; note how the second movie, in 2015 after many years of "Zombie Spongebob" or whatever the cool kids call the mediocre mid-seasons, made over twice as much as the "classic era" first movie. A lot of animation fans would have preferred a third season of Harvey Beaks over a tenth season of Fairly Odd Parents but would it have been a better commercial decision? Almost certainly not.
The second movie was surprisingly good, because some of the staff from the first 3 seasons returned. If the second movie had the same staff who had been working on Spongebob during the mid-seasons, it wouldn't have done as well critically or commercially.
 

Classic Speedy

Mildly perturbed
Staff member
Moderator
Reporter
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
42,324
And that's a bad thing because......?

Nickelodeon made some very stupid decisions, but you can say the same thing with every network ever, including Cartoon Network and Disney. They also made bad decisions as Nickelodeon does, and DON'T try to tell me otherwise.
Speaking of, is it true that Cartoon Network turned down SpongeBob? Because if we're talking about stupid decisions...
 

Spotlight

Staff online

Who's on Discord?

Latest profile posts

Remember back when people were saying that "Streaming is the (bright) future"?
"I can't wait to eat this baby" - Paramount, presumably looking for tax write-offs
Happy Baseball Opening Day
"I'm probably going to watch Nymphomaniac Part II on Disney+ this weekend" isn't something I didn't think I'd ever say, but here we are.

Featured Posts

Top