Klasky Csupo

[Tara]

KC's stuff is really weird and rigid by comparison. Characters seem stiff, and stuck in their poses, arbitrarily (but still ridiculously stiffly) moving their limbs around as they talk. They're also typically weirdly deformed, with massive heads, tiny arms, misshapen bodies, etc. The human characters in R&S remind to stay cartoony and whacky without looking gross and deformed.

 

There's also the problem that in virtually all their shows, whole thing often feels like it should have just been a sitcom instead of a cartoon. Apart from talking babies what in rugrats required to me a cartoon instead? The whole show is actually really dull in terms of animation, especially when compared to old R&S stuff. I wanted to find some good comparison clips but I can't seem to track down the R&S clips I'm after. But basically any ep will do.

 

 

Regardless this is massively offtopic and I should probably let the KC discussion continue. 

I disagree, the talking babies were a very contributive part of the overall plot of an episode.  They were an integral part of either inadvertently fixing things for their parents or ruining things for everyone, rather the parents know that the end product is a direct result of the babies' mishaps or not.  The adults were entertaining, yes, but they don't hold the weight of the whole episode.

 

I'd also disagree with the notion that it feels like a sitcom.  The way the perspective changes from the imagination of the babies to reality could not have been accomplished successfuly in sitcom form and the admittedly gross nature probably would have been a lot more controversial in live action format.  That, and the characters probably wouldn't have been nearly as likeable if they were portrayed by flesh-and-blood actors.  Visuals play a subtle but nevertheless instrumental role in the series and live action does not have enough diversity to properly convey the aesthetics of the caricatures and in-jokes that make up a good portion of the series.

 

(And yes, I know you could easily be referring to an "animated sitcom" but even that I feel would drag the show down a bit.)

 

I would argue that the characters in Ren and Stimpy looked just as gross as pretty much all the KC stuff, but that's all pretty much just a matter of opinion.  I was turned off by both R&S and Rocko's Modern Life because of how unappealing the art looked to me.  Rugrats' art style wasn't exactly Da Vinci by any standards, but it was simplistic and cute, despite being kind of gross at points (but isn't that how kids are?) whereas I always felt that R&S and Rocko were both artistically unappealing and needlessly vulgar.  But farce is a form of art in its own right, just not something I find myself really into with a few exceptions.  So I can't really criticize either R&S or Rocko for achieving their artistic goals.  That, and I've grown a bit of a soft spot for Rocko, but I could never find myself into R&S.

 

That aside, comparing R&S and Rocko's aesthetics to KC's to me is a bit of a moot point since their shows were different in terms of narrative, theme, and mood.  R&S and Rocko were a lot more zaney and hyperactive, whereas Rugrats, Rocket Power, The Wild Thornberries, etc. were all a lot more stoic and laid-back by comparison.  I'd argue that maybe Real Monsters could have benefited from the R&S-style treatment, but the other shows have stiff and limited animation because it fits far better into the actual show.

 

I'm not even going to comment on their newer stuff, though, because I haven't taken the time to watch them, so there's probably one or two or more newer shows by them that contradicts one or more points in this post.

 

I'm not trying to make you appreciate the show anymore than you do, mind you.  I just don't agree with your opinion.