The Willies: Live Review

I'm not gonna beat around the bush. Following the release of Quiet on Set, it put Nickelodeon in more of a negative light than anyone thought possible. While confirming Dan Schneider's degeneracy, and indirectly giving Drake Bell some vindication, we also got a little more info on another Nickelodeon crook, Brian Peck, and the outpour of info was so staggering he actually got a Wikipedia article, which is what led me to this.

Some may wonder how someone like Brian Peck was able to not only get work, but the support of multiple celebrities in Hollywood after he was brought down in 2003, while also getting work time after? On the latter I'd assume nobody bothered to give him a background check, or assumed that if he wasn't directly on set it would have some legal clearance. But on the former, let's go into some background. Peck has been involved since the mid-80s, I'd assume he was a personable guy and the reason people defended him was because, well, nobody would assume someone so allegedly kind would do something so foul.

Of course, beyond interactions behind closed doors, it was hard to pick up on disturbing behaviors as Peck for the most part just popped up in small roles in places you'd never expect. To hell with Pickle Boy, you can find him in cameos for the first two X-Men movies (directed by an outed pedo even), he even had a voice role in the first Jak and Daxter game, the Gambler mind you. And his apparently friendly aura even extended to serial killers, why else would he get a signed painting from John Wayne Gacy, and mind you it's pen pals.

Compared to someone like Victor Salva, whose degeneracy was practically telegraphed in a majority of his films and hinted at in his first movie, who managed to maintain some presence in Hollywood and support from a big name like Francis Ford Coppola, Peck was the kind of guy who just hung out in the background, acting only when the cameras were off. If he directed a movie, would we get a big hint to his misdeeds? Well now there's a chance to answer.

Movie Background

The Willies was put out on video in 1990. It's a low budget horror anthology film that managed to land some fairly big names, no doubt owed to Peck establishing connections. This movie also has Nickelodeon connections. Kathleen Freeman played Mrs. Gordon in As Told by Ginger, Kimmy Robertson played a character in the first season of Drake and Josh, and this movie had Michael Bower, pre Salute your Shorts, and also someone who had a close encounter with Peck, apparently Peck insisted he be in the bathroom with Bower as he cleaned himself off of worms from a previous scene.

So yeah, any chance of separating the art from the artist is null and void, but I'll give Peck this much, at least he didn't show a scene of Bower walking in nothing but pajama bottoms even showing more than we'd ever want to see, like Salva.

But with that said, let's see if any signs were present even back then.

The Movie

The framing device centers on a group of kids telling campfire stories. Takes me back to when I watched 2001's Campfire Stories, and while that film helped make It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia possible by letting two of its lead actors meet for the first time, I question what good this movie did for its actors.

It starts with friends, or brothers, bickering while trying to light a campfire, or in this case, turn on a lantern. I guess Peck is trying to make this scene come off as naturally as possible, but it just drags on and on. If you can cut out dialog and it would be of no consequence to the story then that's not good.

One thing that's kinda interesting about this movie is that it foregoes the three story format most anthology movies have. In this, it's two full stories, mixed with three short ones. Certainly different, but do they work? From what I could gather most of these stories are framed like urban legends, even being based on existing ones and serving as dramatizations. The first one deals with a woman finding a dead rat in her fried chicken, which I couldn't find any links to incidents like it from back then, but similar situations have happened.

The movie appears to be a horror comedy, which means it may not take itself as seriously as others, or just play to the sensibilities of the period. I do have a stomach for some cheesy flicks, others don't.

The next story centers on a man who dies while riding a haunted house attraction. I'd point out how it seems like an underserved fate, or the fact that he hasn't gone on with the expectation of it being not scary, but if this is based on an urban legend. At the very least the old man's commentary is funny in a morbid way. I will point out that in one scene where a woman had her throat slit, the blood coming from the laceration was green. I saw a review of 2002's Max Magician and the Legend of the Rings, another low budget direct-to-video flick that also had green blood.

There was also a story involving a woman who tried to dry off her dog by putting it in the microwave, which is actually a confirmed urban legend, confirmed as in it was discussed. The copy I'm watching had the scene cut out, but you can find it on YouTube. Best way I could describe it is good intentions, a small dog and a microwave don't mix, I think some animal activists would've had a stroke seeing it, and at the very least the payoff was well timed.

But now let's go on to the fuller stories, right after the opening credits which occur about ten minutes in, two included if the microwave segment was included on the print I'm watching.

Keeping with the urban legend motif, and making me want to watch Urban Legends, the 1998 movie, these tales are based on second hand knowledge, it happened to a friend of a friend of theirs, see if you can catch that reference. The first one deals with a bullied boy in Greeley, the exact opposite of Hawaii, I mean they say Greeley, but it may be Connecticut, it's too New Englandy to be Colorado, not helping we needed to be given a grand tour before we even see who the focus is gonna be.

Anyway, focus, and three bullies, how long are they gonna last? But before then, I have to put up with some mediocre kid actors. I'd say these bullying scenes give me Dhar Mann vibes, but I don't think many of you know what I'm talking about. While they'll win no awards in acting, they put more effort into hanging the boy, Danny, in the air, and to his rescue is the school janitor. About the only suspicious thing I can pick out of this is the idea that Peck did the prop work for that scene, close contact, you hopefully get the idea. There's also the janitor, custodian, whatever, insistence that he help Danny out, but that's actually integral to the plot.

Which is good to know because why else place so much focus janistodian unless you just want to pad shit out? Before we get to the scares, it seems like we're just trying to hate the bullies and a teacher, a keen eye would notice these characters would become casualties. Danny would excuse himself to the bathroom, and the ball gets rolling when he sees a giant monster in one of the stalls, note how the monster doesn't chase after him in a subtle clue.

Anyhow, our first casualty is the teacher, who until then, at least she's better than the other Ms. Zorski, As Told by Ginger, only bringing this up since Kathleen Freeman was in that and this.

To add onto the twist, when Danny discovers the school cleaner's body, it's packed away neatly in the closet, head severed from body, no struggle. But back to the teacher, she would go to the bathroom and get into a rant, which is a fancy way of saying she's about to die. She does, but at least she tries to put up a fight, though she would've been better off running.

You can get the idea that the bullies go through the same thing, only this time Danny plays accessory to murder as he knocks down a prop drinking fountain, the dumbest thing I've seen in the movie so far. Also I'd like to point out an earlier scene, and one I'm getting to, showed kids wetting themselves. Take of that what you will, and I only bring it up because, remember, Brian Peck.

It ends with what I assume to be a cameo, and confirmation that cleaning dude is in fact the monster, and is carrying out his deeds at a new school.

The twist was somewhat obvious if you paid close enough attention, and the idea of a grown man killing children to protect others can't be taken seriously if it was directed by- well you get the picture. Only way this could be worse is if Danny's actor was also a victim.

One last thing to bring up is that the janitor is played by James Karen. I don't know if playing a monster in a Brian Peck movie is a lower point than playing a klansman,  The Jeffersons.

Anyhow, me bringing up Peck may not stop anytime soon, because the next story has Michael Bower, and I want to see how strong the warning signs are here.

The next story centers on an unpleasant boy who likes to torture flies. I mean sure, I kill them and they are unpleasant but damn, must be going through something fierce. Gordy encounters a farmer/scientist, and the latter is bound to provide something that would seal his fate, but not if Gordy tries to steal it first, it being some manure. I assume to get something foul enough to attract flies, and we know the manure is not your average manure, given the science junk we see inside. Seems like this isn't even a first time offense, as he's on a full name basis with the farmer.

Compared to Danny in the previous story, we're learning more about Gordy here, I mean did we need to know he had asthma? Let's see if that proves to be important. To its credit, in a scene where Gordy plays with a cat, it seems needless, but it actually has a payoff and establishes how rotten he is, so rotten something bad is bound to happen to him.

The next scene hangs for a while as Gordy puts flies he caught into a jar. About the only thing that caught me off guard was what looked like a bunch of stray hairs climbing up the wall to the far right. Unless there was a greater point to this, all I have to say to this scene is that it leaves a very dark implication, you can figure.

If it wasn't obvious Gordy was mistreating flies, the next scene focuses on him poisoning them using the fumes from liquid nail remover, but then again that's not clear as next he goes on to study them, no wait, he's removing their wings for a collection, wait again, he's putting them in a tank filled with chewed gum and an eaten lolipop.

Okay, if I had to share my biggest problem with this story is that it doesn't firmly establish the tone. Is he fascinated or into torturing flies, whether intentionally or not? Of course there's also the matter of the music, where certain tracks begin out of nowhere, worst offender being here where it cuts from a somber piano tune to a war theme.

But now I have a better picture, he's taking flies, removing their wings, and using them as pieces for models. I guess if he just kills flies it would've been too easy, especially since Gordy has dysfunctional parents. Points for subverting expectations, but why the hell did it have to happen in a film helmed by someone so, ahem, upstanding.

If you needed a good reason to why Gordy stole from the farmer, the next scene confirms that the manure is genetically engineered, and probably has a good enough scent to attract flies hence him stealing it, otherwise why bother? Also, take a peek at the callsigns to a news station, KORN. And Korn didn't get the idea for their name from this movie, just for the record, the story behind that is far more dirty.

After a decent amount of foreshadowing, complete with Brian Peck himself as a newscaster, near someone older than him, granted, we get a bit more as Gordy's parents are worn to the bone with his interests. I don't know whether to call it projection, paranoia from the older generation, or a hit close to home just because you're not with it, but this feels different now compared to then. Later we get cameos from Tracey Gold and Kirk Cameron of Growing Pains, and I just want to say, of all the people who wrote letters to the court on behalf of leniency toward Peck, at the very least Kirk Cameron wasn't among them, guy may be a bit touched in the head but he's consistent at least.

I'd like to make a comparison to Victor Salva. Salva's Clownhouse and this featured a scene that had a boy in their pajamas. While Salva just had Nathan Forrest Winters in bottoms, at the very least Peck had Michael Bower fully covered here, and I bring it up because remember, Bower was a victim, and I'm looking for warning signs.

Anyhow, dream sequence. While it is made somewhat obvious it is one, I can forgive it if it's executed well, but it's as if Peck couldn't decide where it wanted to end. A good opportunity would've come after the Growing Pains cameo, but then it gets wacky as the farmer addresses Gordy, complete with ham. To be fair this isn't where the dream ends, as Gordy finds his body in a refrigerator surrounded by flies. I'd make a comparison to Emerald Twilight, but that came long after.

The nightmare loses its punch quite easily because it's dragged out. If this plays into the comedy aspect of horror comedy, I ain't laughing, and I sure as hell ain't scared. But oh no, that was one of two nightmares. Gordy finds worms in his inhaler, and his bed. At the very least there was no over the top music, so it's at least a notch above the first nightmare for not dragging out.

Speaking of drag, we gotta see Gordy go through more of his day to day routines, like lunch. He sits at a girls' table, and hey they didn't leave or tell him to leave. I'm counting on Gordy to either get framed, or stick to his own dirty tricks, and look at that it's the latter, he's not gonna make it unscathed at the end.

Before anything else, I found a scene were dialog was clearly ADRed in, nobody's mouths are moving. Almost as suspiscious as Spivey suddenly welcoming strangers to his farm. Hmm, maybe that first nightmare was a telepathic communication, it certainly didn't do anything to reform Gordy. For some extra props Spivey isn't being over the top when it comes to what I assume would be payback, at least not that much, until he gives Gordy a jar of his manure, made especially for him.

Sudden change of heart, manure built like no other, giving it to a little hellion that trespasses... better check the registry, I mean it's not like this is foreshadowing... what happens next in the movie, I'll get to the other later. For now, the mom gets rid of Gordy's flies, but in order for anything to happen, some need to somehow remain, and there is, from an unseen fly trap, and with him not learning anything we're nearing the end.

The movie cut to a bug zapper infrequently, I don't know if this is gonna have any relevance to what happens, but I'm getting ahead of myself. The flies mutate and grow to a giant size, thanks to the manure, when we see the flies it isn't done in the form of a jumpscare, that's a plus because giant flies are kinda silly, and they proceed to kill Gordy....'s hands.

The asthma detail had also worked well because it would explain how he was unable to scream loud enough, the parents get a full fright upon seeing the flies, and Gordy wakes up. You'd think this was a fake out but turned out to be real, but no, Gordy was just waking up, lounging on a hammock, now having prosthetic arms and accepting his fate.

I'll admit, I expected him to die, so he got off incredibly lucky, and he took it like a trooper. Of course losing your arms to flies is a piece of cake compared to-

Okay, the end, things go dark to prepare for a final scare... one that does not come yet, they get checked up on by an uncle, who turns out to be the monster janitor, I don't hear the other kids screaming so I assume he didn't just kill them for the crime of skepticism, but that's about it.

Thoughts

I'm not here to deny the creepy and depraved shit Brian Peck did, but I need to be objective. Compared to Victor Salva, Peck was more discreet, everything he did was behind closed doors and it doesn't show in this movie.

But, if you remove Peck from the equation, you're essentially left with an Are you Afraid of the Dark or Goosebumps type affair, which is pretty apt, as this came out two months after Are you Afraid of the Dark came out. Somehow this movie managed to keep my attention, I appreciate moments where certain cliches are either subverted or not done, the performances are fine enough, and to reiterate, if you see this movie with no context to Peck, you may not know what he has done, even if he acted creepy around Michael Bower behind the scenes.

Of course this is no underrated masterpiece, or that good at all, don't get it twisted. At the end of the day this is just a mere curiosity, and the only reason you may know about it is because you looked through Peck's filmography. A film by a man who got by through connections, popping up in the most random places, and you know the rest.

But let's be grateful Peck isn't on the scene anymore, and it only took fifteen years for him to finally eff off.

X-Men 97 Impressions

 So not too long ago, Disney released an announcement for X-Men 07. It isn't a reboot, it isn't a remake, it isn't a standalone movie, it's not even gonna be some Love and Thunder-ian nightmare. It's intended to act as a continuation of the 1990s animated series.

To be perfectly honest, X-Men was never a part of my childhood. I have heard of X-Men in general, but I never heard of the show or saw much of it, at least until Nostalgia Critic covered it way back when. On one hand, I'd have no say in the quality of X-Men, on the other, at least this means I can approach this new show without any bias. How does an outsider feel about X-Men? Especially a Disney property?

General Stuff

When going into a Marvel property, it's important to highlight the connection it has to its parent company. While Disney was able to make Marvel content profitable, it's clear Disney had run Marvel into the ground, and things could be better. A company would do anything to restore good faith, and something tells me that's the mentality Disney had when they decided to do Deadpool 3, and this show, bringing back a popular character, and use nostalgia to some advantage.

A company would often turn to a safe-haven when they know a majority of their projects barely meet or fall below expectations. Why else are we getting another Planet of the Apes movie? And why are we getting more X-Men, let alone a continuation of the 90s series now?

Though honestly it seems like X-Men is the perfect IP to turn to in this era, given its themes, and the only reason it took so long for Disney to get their hands on it was legal ownership, or something like that, I don't know the score.

I'm not one of those "anti-woke" types who would assume X-Men has been pigeonholed, because that would be a stretch. The old cartoon, even the general philosophy, has always been progressive, though I would argue it and other shows like it handled certain themes better than most shows today; either with more subtlety or better writing, whereas a lot of stuff these days are a bit too on the nose. I'm all for covering issues, but there're right and wrong ways to go about it.

Recognizable Changes

As far as noticeable changes go, it is said that Morph will become non-binary. I get what they're going for, given that Morph's ability is to become anyone he/she/they so chooses, with so many identities, it's fair to assume they have little sense of their own identity anymore. I guess if anyone had to go through an overhaul Morph seemed like the ideal choice.

A Rant about Asses

But there is of course one aspect that's driving people nuts. Rogue's ass. People are mad that Rogue isn't as, ahem, built as she was back then, and given people's attitudes toward more progressive stuff these days you can imagine what that's like.

Back in the 90s, before any real standards were set, before any major disasters influenced the future of cartoons as we knew them, things were a bit looser, and cheap, and that was outweighed by the ambition writers had back then, animation errors and off-modeling would be very common back then.

And what am I trying to say here? The calling card people go to, the one shot people use when making their complaints... it was off-model. Rouge does not have that big of an ass in any scene other than the one people go to. It's all one big misunderstanding that people refuse to pick up on.

But why would they? Well, referring back to the lack of standards and how 90s cartoons got away with a lot back then? Among many things, one of them was women with sex appeal. Such examples include the 1996 Incredible Hulk cartoon, with the infamous She-Hulk transformation that got a lot of people interested in the character, I can attest. That booty shot of Rogue had a similar effect on a lot of people.

Now, it's one thing to get an interest, everyone has their kinks, they're not my business, but this has gone beyond a simple interest to an actual criticism toward X-Men 97, especially since it's over something that was never really considered in-model for Rogue to start with.

To sum this up, I've developed a psychological complex where if people shit on a new iteration of an old show because of very minor things, especially if there's a good explanation to why things have changed, I will not take them seriously. I'm saying this as someone who had no background with X-Men, as someone who can see the faults in established properties trying to approach modern issues, and something's smelling rotten.

Final Thoughts

I have no intention of watching X-Men 97, along with the lack of attachment to X-Men, I don't have, nor do I intend to get Disney+. Honestly, X-Men 97 seems like a desperate attempt by Disney to restore good faith to the Marvel brand by relying on nostalgic properties, and a lot of people are clearly taking the bait. Who knows what the actual show will be like, but I'm not gonna find out.

And to think, the one thing people lost their shit over was an off-model scene not being represented. It's bound to lead to a snowball effect that would turn the tides on media discussion, probably, I dunno.

Top 5 Classic DCAU Shows I still Love

Superhero fatigue, it's the beginning of the end for an ongoing series of superhero films, and it has already claimed the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I'm in a similar boat when it comes to the DC Animated Universe. It really feels like they have stuck to one or two tonal directions for longer than they should have, yes I'm sure it's meant to establish continuity or stuff like that, but it's starting to get old. When I see a new DC cartoon coming out, I'd have a feeling it'd be the most generic thing I'd ever seen, I mean in my personal opinion.

But, it doesn't mean I have to rule out every single DC cartoon. I've been revisiting certain ones to see if they still hold up for me, and I've been able to narrow it down to five... and four of which are from the Timmverse. I'm gonna share five DC cartoons I had revisited, and came out still loving them.

#5: Batman Beyond

Anyone remember The Hub? Back when it was on they used to air reruns of some of the old Timmverse cartoons, Superman and Batman TAS and this. It was through The Hub I got to see these shows, and I liked what I saw... well, Batman TAS is a good show, but honestly kinda overrated, more on that later.

I like this show kinda for the same reasons everyone else does. It has a darker tone compared to Batman TAS, in a way I can't make an example of because I haven't seen much of the show in so long, sorry. But hey, Batman: TAS fans rejoice for an extension of that series, with some teenage drama and a serialized redemption arc that sees the future's Batman earn that title.

Although I wouldn't blame you if you had a better time with Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. Compared to Batman: TAS, Batman Beyond had the better movie adaptation, closing the book on Bruce Wayne's story and bringing Joker back in style. Of course I can't do these shows justice in explaining them, just know that I have great respect for them, and if you really wanna know, you're better off watching them for yourself.

#4: Superman TAS

Superman can be considered a lighter inverse of Batman, no wonder people openly rejected Man of Steel. While this has a similar tone to Batman: TAS, Superman does a great job at standing on its own, while going dark whenever it needs to. Superman also has a more nostalgic look and feel to it. Timmverse shows made use of art deco themes and backgrounds, which are generally considered timeless, and since Superman had been a component of popular culture for so long, it's good to keep up tradition, of course that shouldn't deter people from switching things up, in general, sometimes DC fans are a bit too picky when it comes to representing heroes.

Back to the tone, it has a better balance than say, Teen Titans, what with that show's near constant tonal whiplash. You don't have to err to one extreme or the other if you want to do both.

#3: The Batman

Which means, yes, I prefer the 2004 The Batman cartoon to Batman: TAS. Not saying one is better than the other, but I just found The Batman more interesting, then again it was the first Batman cartoon I saw, perhaps with the exception of a tiny portion of Mask of the Phantasm I saw as a kid.

But why do I like it more? It's all in how it handles its tone. Batman: TAS had a more theatric tone, most of the time characters would get into monologues and it had a more straightly-played serious tone. Whereas The Batman had a bit more grit to it, often going hard when it comes to more insane and tragic characters. Ethan Bennett's Clayface, intended to act as a substitute to Two-Face, had some stronger build-up and more horrifying culmination, and they even redeemed him in his last appearance.

That aside, the show's use of more saturated colors and grit lends to a fairly unique show, providing an underlying sense of just how much Gotham is slowly starting to sink, this was Year Three Batman mind you.

They also do a good job portraying the grief Bruce feels for his family, as well as his dynamic with Alfred, which I feel is the strongest in any Batman cartoon I've seen. Though if you want the best experience for the show, stick with the first season and determine if you want to continue.

#2: Static Shock

Even as I started to stray from DC and action cartoons in general back then, I always had a soft spot for Static Shock. It came out closer to the end of the Timmverse, and it really stands well on its own. It is as compelling as it is funny, and it gets right down to the bigger IRL issues, trying to avoid spoilers here, basically summed it up already.

#1: Justice League Unlimited

This surpasses Static Shock because I just got back into the series recently. This is another nostalgic show for me, and that's not all it has going for it. As one of the last Timmverse shows, I get a lot of what made Timm's shows great, from the stories to the general tone. What makes this show great is that you don't necessarily have to read comic books beforehand to understand what's happening.

Not to mention the intro is an utter earworm.

Worst CatDog Episode

For some strange reason, CatDog is one of my favorite shows of all time, nostalgic, unique, not terribly cringe. But like every show ever, it has its share of clunkers, it's just that people are taking their sweet ass time singling them out. So, I've decided to single out what I consider to be the worst CatDog episode

The Ballad of Ol' 159

As most of you may know, this was one of six CatDog episodes that were never broadcast on Nickelodeon, a and b segments included, at least in the United States. If you want my opinion on the rest of those episodes, Vexed of Kin and Meat Dog's Friends are the only ones that are decent, the former because you get to see CatDog's parents one last time, the latter being an episode by Steve Banks, who had been with the series longer than anyone, and perhaps its pseudo-horror tone toward the end was better than CatDog in Winslowland's whatever.

A bulk of the later era CatDog episodes felt kinda off. Not just because of their sudden switch to digital ink and paint, but because most of the episodes there felt like they were being played a bit too straight, as in, it is more directly established who is the good guy and who's the bad. Either this is done to set up a moral, or they couldn't bring much life to an idea and thus had to take a more direct approach to it. When it comes to CatDog, my tell for it is when Cat is directly portrayed as an antagonist and Dog the protagonist, with Cone Dog being a good example for what I mean.

Not to say older CatDog episodes didn't do this, but I can't say I'm the biggest fan of a majority of Dean Stefan's episodes; Dog's Strange Condition, but even then it fits with Cat's obsession with money, and not to say straightfoward episodes always suck, it all boils down to everything in-between.

For this episode, let me describe a particular framework and fill in the pieces from there.

Someone likes something

Someone creates something that threatens the existence of that something

The other someone attempts to save the something from the other something

The something is saved.

And now let's get into the premise.

Dog likes a garbage truck, Ol' 159

Cat creates the garbage guzzler that threatens the existence of Ol' 159

Dog attempts to save Ol' 159 from the garbage guzzler

Ol' 159 is saved.

So right out of the gate the premise of this episode is incredibly basic. I'm sure other CatDog episodes had basic plots, but they managed to rise past this by having more to them. Here, it's played far too straight for its own good. About the only interesting thing this episode had was Mr. Sunshine showing more emotion than he normally would. You could argue his outburst upon finding out about what happened to his acceptance letter to Clown College was just, until you realize anyone could've been in that spot. That to me suggests they just had a basic premise with CatDog characters inserted into it.

But it's not just the premise that sucks for me, it's the kind of story that really gets me. You know those TV show episodes where the protagonists attempt to stop the demolition of something old, or lose something they love? If you need an example to know what I'm talking, refer to the Hey Arnold! episode The Old Building.

Episodes like these are played straight almost every time, with some exceptions these episodes always end with the old thing managing to be saved, no matter what. Look, I'm a history enthusiast myself, and advocate for preservation, but I know a cliche when I see one. I'm up for a change.

But cliches and simplicity aside, those wind up making minor details even worse, like the motivation behind the premise. With that Hey Arnold! episode you can understand demolition slates, but for this episode, Cat made the garbage guzzler because he was tired of being dragged around while Dog chased garbage trucks. He's not suffering, but after so many years, quite literally too as Dog has been chasing that truck since he was a baby, he'd get sick of it. It's the kind of episode where if you overthink it, you'd just feel worse for it, and it gets worse when you realize that this episode came out closer to the end of the series; if a show ends with a bad episode, well, a journey is only as good as its destination, if the destination sucks then the journey would've felt worthless, because the end is the end no matter what.

Not to say the episode is unsalvageable. A few tweaks could've made it work. For the big one, don't have Cat make the garbage guzzler. Rancid Rabbit would make it so he wouldn't have to pay the garbage men. Cat would take it well because that means Dog won't be able to chase garbage trucks anymore. Dog tries to stop Rancid to save Ol' 159 from being demolished and after it seems Dog won't be able to succeed, Cat would somehow be swayed into helping, the truck is saved, back to square one.

Other ideas I have include the truck winning the race, but it was destroyed by the guzzler and thus nobody really wins. Or to try and keep with the spirit of older episodes, have it where while there're no more garbage trucks to chase, there're plenty of meat trucks. Or if they wanna go the straight route, have the garbage guzzler turn out to be more trouble than the garbage trucks, thus a need to destroy it.

But the episode as is just doesn't work.

Now, if you intend to bring it up, what do I think about the Pete the Polecat scenes? Fistful of Mail handled the concept better, with a comedic song suiting the tone of that episode better, whereas we just have a country singer getting struck when he tries to sing. It's not bad but it gets old, especially compared to the Fistful example where it's heard sparingly.

There're other CatDog episodes that feel flat, or are played straight, but the problem with the Ballad of Ol' 159 is that it's not only played too straight but has other elements that make it seem worse.

But what would you consider to be the worst CatDog episode?

Frosty the Snowman is Kinda Terrible

Rankin/Bass quite honestly did more harm than good in the longrun. No, I'm not citing stuff like sexism or racism in that. I mean we have a bunch of fundamentally flawed Christmas specials that are heralded to this very day from constant television airings. How else did Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory get its following?

I know no movie, show, special is ever perfect, but there's a limit, especially when it comes down to how its executed. It's a hard pill to swallow, but Rankin/Bass' animated specials, a majority at least, just don't hold up as well as they should. Exceptions apply, but without the rose tinted sunglasses you can't possibly see past the faults many of them have, especially if the remainder has little to show for it. Of all the Rankin/Bass specials, I consider Frosty the Snowman to be the worst of the bunch, bar none. If the only defense you can raise for it is nostalgia, it proves my point. Not to say you're not allowed to like it, if you enjoy the special you have the right.

There's a certain order when it comes to Frosty specials and their reps. Ironically, the few Frosty specials I kinda like, emphasis on kinda, are the two that're considered the worst, as contrarian as that sounds. Funnily enough, the worst specials tend to have more thought into character motivations, keep that in mind as I get into the 60s special. Frosty Returns at worst is an environmentalist pamphlet, but if so it's at least better than others like it. I get the picture, Holly wants to prevent the mass removal of snow if it means she has to lose Frosty forever, and to its credit the snow removal is done out of pettiness, so you can err more to Holly's side especially if you as a kid enjoyed snow days.

As for Legend of Frosty the Snowman, let me put it like this, the only takeaway people took from this is that it burns its ties to the Rankin/Bass special, that's all anyone ever says about it. What is this movie like in a vacuum? Honestly still not good, but not as bad as people claim it to be. At large it tries to be quirky, but it really lacks the staying power that something like Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer had.

But What the Hell is Wrong with Frosty the Snowman?

To put it simply, it had little thought put into it, you ironically feel more bad for the villain because he was essentially wronged and now forced to get the shaft, the jokes are bland and at this rate you'd wish it were stop motion because the cel animation looks like ass, lacking the stylization Peanuts had. It's not much, but beyond the songs, they essentially encompass the entire special. 

The plot can be easily summed up. Hack magician gets rid of hat that he believes doesn't work, kids find hat and use it for a snowman they made, snowman comes to life, hijinks ensue between their fun and the magician trying to get the hat back, snowman dies, Santa says it's no longer his hat because Christmas. You could argue that the plot was made as it were to go along with the song of the same name, but look, a little liberty can go a long way. High risk high reward.

I mean is it too much to ask for the plot to be about a girl finding an old top hat in her attic or buy it from a store, it turns out to be magic and Frosty is born. You'd probably argue that there'd be no conflict if it were that way, and if so, why not make it so the hat is valuable, and Hinkley had been after it in order to improve his career, thus he tries to snatch it. As for that emotional Frosty death scene at the end, why not have it as a noble sacrifice, where Hinkle falls under thin ice and Frosty dives in to save him, melting to nothing. Realizing the noble effort, Hinkle is unable to take the hat and lets Karen keep it as a sign of good faith, and hey, Christmas is the time to give so it checks out.

One thing that always bothered me about this special is that Karen basically stole a hat, whether intentional or not. Whether it landed on the snowman or in the vicinity of the kids, they just took it for themselves basically. In an era where parents were more prudish, this would've raised a lot of red flags, don't take what may be personal property, it's basic morality. It's not even like this was intended to be groundbreaking or subversive, this was just not well thought out.

And it gets especially bad at the end, where Santa comes in and says "Oh, you want your hat back? Tough. I'll put you on my naughty list and give you a punishment." What were they going for with that? This sounds like something Phelous would mock. This is what happens if you never grew up with the special, the faults take the forefront.

And look, this isn't to say all specials from this timeframe held up poorly, Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol was the first Christmas special and it aged gracefully, so have most others. It's possible, but Frosty's issues are too big to ignore if you never grew up with it. It's certainly one of the more faulty Rankin/Bass specials, and what makes it worse is that while it's technically more competent than cheaper offerings, that means you can see the film more objectively, flaws and all.

You can do much better, especially with a dumb story or an over the top saccharine tale, or perhaps one with both. They're not any better, but they're certainly a lot more fun to watch.

My Question to You

If you still enjoy this movie, then answer me this. What do you see in it? You can still enjoy it, but I want to know your mentality, if it's anything beyond just being nostalgic for it.

My Most Overrated Movie

It's The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. I'm not gonna sugarcoat it, it is what it is. To be perfectly clear, this is all just my personal opinion, you're welcome to disagree, just as much as I'm welcome to share. Otherwise what's the point? So let's get into it.

Personal Background

As another clarification, I'm not trying to be a contrarian, and I have seen this movie plenty of times before. I was a SpongeBob fan, and I remember actually being hyped for this movie when it was gonna come out. I got the movie's video game for GameCube, I believe I saw it in theaters then time later I got it on DVD and saw it however much I could then on. So I never went into the film as a hater, it was a slow burn leading to now.

Fallout

But what happened? As history shows, people like PIEGUYRULZ and MoBrosStudios effectively killed the SpongeBob fandom, and it's never gonna get better. As a consequence, SpongeBob fans had rallied in the name of Stephen Hillenburg, attacking anything they deem to be violating what they deem to be his wishes, and basically not understanding that the show stopped being his once the series made it to air, and there was nothing he could do even when he was alive.

Before you think I'm talking shit for the hell of it, keep in mind that Stephen was the director of The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. He'd be dragged into this no matter what.

Textbook Defintion

Everything he did was essentially put on a higher pedestal than it was before, though ironically while he created SpongeBob he didn't always write every single episode, just saying. So, you have Stephen's work pushed to high heavens to honor him or shun later seasons. Now, combine that with the fact that the first  SpongeBob movie has become a nostalgic film, with those who saw it growing up now infesting the internet, and you have what is essentially a cold disaster. Nothing serious is happening, but there is the lingering sense that one side or the other is going to set off the proverbial nuke.

The big thing is that people are making this movie seem better than it actually is. Like others before and after it, this was just a film made by Nickelodeon to expand upon one of their brands. Not that it's a bad thing, it's just business as usual and people are allowed to enjoy it. When you take away the SpongeBob elements... you're left with a few things.

1: A Quite Frankly Ordinary Plot

Had this not been a nostalgic movie nor was it released when it was... how well does the plot hold up? The jokes have always been the high point of SpongeBob, at least back then, so what happens when you take them out? You're essentially left with a quite frankly generic plot, kids can do anything, so we've heard. You could say "Well isn't this just a kids movie, why are you being so hard on the plot?" Two things, one, people made it a point to fight the stigma that cartoons are for kids. Two, you'd probably say that in defense of a movie you love that I don't like. It's a lose-lose situation no matter what.

But I'm going at the plot like this, because previous Nickelodeon movies honestly handled things better, Rugrats in Paris with its humor and the framework of Chuckie wanting a mom, and Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius, with kids being kids and realizing what their parents mean to them. If it doesn't sound like much in writing, you have to see the movies themselves to really understand how well their plots are executed. SpongeBob feels basic by comparison, which you can forgive if you enjoy the film, you have the right. But remember, this is a film that has been praised more than I feel it deserves, and I have to hold it to some level of scruitiny.

2: Some Quite Frankly Basic Animation

So that was one big hot take on the plot, how about another? Sorry to say, but the SpongeBob SquarePants Movie's animation could be a lot better. It's not bad, but when you stack it up against other Nickelodeon movies before it, it looks sorta cheap. To its credit, it's not something a lot of people can pick up on right away, but since SpongeBob was becoming Nickelodeon's golden cow at this rate you'd think they'd put more money into it. Just saying, the Rugrats movie trilogy The Wild Thornberrys Movie each have better animation, and those came out before. The animation here is almost lower quality than that of Hey Arnold!: The Movie, and that was intended for television.

You could say, well those movies were made with traditional animation, the SpongeBob movie was made with digital ink and paint. You could also say that the animation direction was intentional because the characters are integrated into live action scenarios, but I'll get back into that in a bit. If you have those previous movies in mind, this sticks out like a sore thumb, and you can practically see characters snap between stances.

At best, this serves as a good example of the difference between digital animation and traditional animation. It's not bad, but it could be a lot better, especially given how big SpongeBob is, and that it has been a standard that went as far as Sponge out of Water. You have the money, the resources, the relevance, you were not in any trouble, there was only one other film coming out that year, just saying.

A quick thing about continuity.

For those who've had aneurysms over minor continuity errors, you could question how SpongeBob and Patrick didn't change into props when they entered the surface like in the episode Pressure, and this was by Stephen Hillenburg. I mean then again because he was involved people will turn a blind eye.

I dunno, it's just funny how this oversight was never really brought up. If you complain about continuity, but make exceptions for certain offenses then why should I take complaints like that seriously? You can complain, but be consistent.

#3: Also has Celebrity Voice Actors

This one will be brief. A lot of people complain about celebrity voice actors in kids movies. So I take it nobody knew who Alec Baldwin or David Hasselhoff were?

It's Not Culturally Significant

I know that seems like a stretch, given how highly people hold this film, but we have to be real. Had this not been associated with SpongeBob, people probably wouldn't remember it that much. Even back then, the most this got was a 68%, which while good, isn't to the level people claim it to be, not helping that there're people who complain about the rating.

I can accept people loving the movie no matter its issues or what not, but people don't know their limits. Case in point, time ago someone attempted to copy what Shrek Retold did by reanimating the entirety of the SpongeBob Squarepants Movie, it got claimed by Viacom, and naturally people got salty. Listen, when it comes to fair use, it can only be considered as such if the video provides commentary, criticism or is a parody. Rehydrated wasn't a parody, it was just the same story told with different voices and animation, you can get the intended experience either way.

You could say that was one of many contributing factors to a parasocial relationship people made with Stephen, and he can't even say anything about it now.

To describe how little cultural significance this show had, I want to compare this to a more accurate example. Shrek. Like SpoongeBob, Shrek is one of the most memed properties on the internet. You can credit Shrek for forever changing animated cinema. It was one of the first films, or the first to truly catch on with the masses, to subvert common tropes, incorporate pop culture references and commentary, and show how lucrative the computer animation industry was.

What did SpongeBob do to the movie industry? Nothing the TV series hasn't already done. Beyond starting out as a children's book, Shrek managed to become its own thing. The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie can be considered a cash-in on the show's success, or better yet, an extension of a corporate property. There's a serious implication if you ask me, but I guess it just so happened to be a more likable film than other examples.

Final Thoughts

I never wanted to hate this movie. I grew up with it, I'm not even saying it's a bad movie, but let's face it, the fandom ruined it by making it seem bigger than it had any right to be. Whether running Stephen's name through the mud or playing dumb when it comes to a lot of the film's faults, I've had my fill, and I'm sure a lot of people are gonna hang me from a tree, or just post a comment and block me like they typically do.

Rugrats Go Wild: A Disappointment

 I've had old Nickelodeon movies on my mind for a while now, as weird as it sounds. In my defense, I did grow up with most of them, the first two Rugrats movies and Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius to cite the bigger examples.

Nickelodeon Movies has truly evolved into its own little empire, covering everywhere they could, and even if most of their movies aren't much to write home about you gotta respect their commitment, though I prefer their more humble beginnings. Nickelodeon Movies wasn't just an extension of Nickelodeon, they wanted to get anywhere they could, whether it be book adaptations like with Harriet the Spy, their own SNL movie with Good Burger (because All That was essentially a kid friendly SNL), a screwball comedy with Snow Day, a science-fiction flick with Clockstoppers, joining in the computer animation boom with Jimmy Neutron, and expanding upon their popular Nicktoons like with their two Rugrats movies, Hey Arnold! and The Wild Thornberrys.

And also The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie I guess. I don't hate the movie, but fuck me is it overrated as hell.

While a lot of these older films aren't amazing by any stretch, they have their fans and I'd watch them. I wanted to give each classic Nickelodeon movie the benefit of the doubt, I can see kids back then enjoying it or just some dumb fun movie with an interesting idea and well enough execution, and of all of them... Rugrats Go Wild was the one that broke me.

Background

Rugrats Go Wild is both a threequel to the past two Rugrats movies, and a sequel to The Wild Thornberrys Movie. In the past, Rugrats was Nickelodeon's prime cash cow, and they went all out with their milking of it, from the show itself to that of its production company Klasky-Csupo. The Wild Thornberrys can be seen as another symptom of the milking, not that it has to be a bad thing, we got a lot of good stuff out of it, but it was clear Nickelodeon were struggling to keep everything afloat.

When it comes to Rugrats Go Wild, I can see the reasoning behind it, but to demonstrate I have to go into the previous films. The first Rugrats movie, while not a critical success, did gangbusters at the box office. You could say it in the right place at the right time. Rugrats in Paris was better than the previous film, and it also killed at the box office. As for The Wild Thornberrys, it was a critical and commercial success, and you can see why Klasky-Csupo became Nickelodeon's money printer, they can turn a profit every time.

However, as history shows it was clear that Rugrats was starting to run out of steam, hence why they had to add a lot to the original show, also spin-offs. Not to say the additions were a problem, Dil can be seen as the lesser of the two evils in the show's more radical changes, and Kimi and everyone else came in at what is generally considered to be the best Rugrats movie of the three, but then again they would've been better suited for a single appearance to mark the end for a long journey for Chuckie Finster finding a new mom, and even more. Just saying.

When it came to Rugrats Go Wild, there really weren't any stakes. Nickelodeon just wanted to get more money out of their bigger shows, or just their biggest contractee, and what better way to do that than with a crossover? All three films mentioned did great at the box office, so Nickelodeon would assume people would go to see it no matter what. It's all part of what I dub the threequel curse, where companies deem make a third film typically to cash in on their own property and thus it loses some of the punch prior entries had, especially if they do without some key personel.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, Jurassic Park 3, Sponge on the Run, you see what I mean? Then again I don't think the former two films are that bad but unfortunately they suit my point. It's there that a movie becomes a brand and it's fair game for anyone in order to turn a profit or further existing projects. I mean, why else did they decide to make a crossover between shows that've been going on for a decent while that gets the most view time? Not helping that one of them had been going on for over a decade by this point.

Ignoring critical reviews as they've typically been low for Nickelodeon movies, I'll focus on the film's commercial success... which is hard to really describe. I heard that a box office success is a film making double its money back. In total, against a $25 million budget it made $55.4 million, which is a little above double but that's accounting for worldwide sales. In the US, it made $39.4 million. But if you want layman's terms, this did worse than the previous Rugrats movies.

Either the movie was that bad or people were starting to get sick of the property altogether. But I have a little theory to why this flopped.

While a lot of Nickelodeon movies were made to cash in on properties they owned, this one felt a lot more cynical compared to previous films. Exceptions are made because the experiences they provide can override said cynical elements, or the properties themselves are already so beloved to begin with people would just eat that shit up no matter what even if they contain elements that people complain about in kids movies like musical numbers, celebrity guest voices, pop culture references, mid animation, dumb jokes and the involvement of a guy people formed a parasocial connection to, *cough* SpongeBob *cough*

Cynicism

The best place to start is the opening logos, and it's not the logophile in me. Prior to late-2004 with the release of Lemony Snickets: A Series of Unfortunate Events, every Nickelodeon movie had their very own Nickelodeon Movies logo. Along with unique movies, they had unique identities, the executions equally so. It's a subtle trick, or perhaps it's just some extra creative juices flowing. So, what Nickelodeon Movies logo did they use for this film? The same one that was used on Hey Arnold!: The Movie, just with a different song. Not that it's a bad logo, but seriously, couldn't spring for something that either suited the movie or was just unique. It wasn't even a synonymous brand, otherwise it would've been used on more movies.

I'm harping on this, but it's really only because of a dire implication. I won't deny past Nickelodeon movies were made to promote the network's brand, but with Rugrats Go Wild and just using a straightforward logo it feels a lot more cynical, or just obvious. It doesn’t help that Klasky-Csupo also has an opening logo here, which does look cool and reflect their growth, but also reflects how they essentially became a brand themselves, Nickelodeon essentially had them under thumb at this point. Of course it’s something kids don’t pick up on, and the logos are good, it’s just a subtle red flag that usually indicates where a movie will stand.

Okay enough logo talk.

One interesting thing about this movie is that it made use of its own stab at Smell-O-Vision, remember that weird shit? Though credit where it's due, rather than forcing the odor into the viewing rooms, viewers got scratch and sniff cards, see the number on the screen, scratch and have a whiff. You know, the only other film I know of that came with scratch and sniff cards was Spy Kids 4, and if you want my opinion on that film, it made me less ashamed for being nostalgic for Spy Kids 3D: Game Over.

Regarding that, you could say this movie was made as a testing ground for a new gimmick, but they didn't want to base the film entirely around it, half hearted commitment. If not, you could say this is meant to act as a promotion for whatever, whether it be a new actor, new artist or a brand new television series... I tell ya I wish the SpongeBob fandom wasn't so broken that I can approach criticizing Sponge on the Run with good faith-

But What do I personally think of the movie?

In short, it's more like a 5 out of 10, not the worst thing ever, but up against other films it does not land on its feet.

When it comes to the previous two films, there was some kind of standard set, a grand adventure with some emotional moments along the way. From a brotherly quarrel reaching a fever pitch and Spike seemingly giving his life to save his babies, to Chuckie dealing with the lack of a mother, continuing on a defining character element. For Rugrats Go Wild, either more emotional moments are far and in between, or stuff like gross out humor outweighs it. Not to say the previous films didn't have it, but they were sorta better about it.

The story doesn't fare as well either, at least in my opinion. A crossover between the Rugrats and the Wild Thornberrys could be done well, and who knows, maybe to a lot of people it worked, but it doesn't feel like it does, it feels a bit too basic. A major problem here is the influx of characters that get the spotlight. By this point, Rugrats' main cast has inflated considerably, and with the addition of the main cast from another show, it's too many characters to get invested with. If you focus on every character the story would be all over the place, if you focus on a few characters then it would feel like something was missing. I feel like the movie was backed into a corner on that one. 

One cool thing that was utilized at least was, as this is a Wild Thornberrys crossover, this means Eliza could potentially communicate with Spike, and she does. But perhaps this was done to get in a big celebrity cameo, Bruce Willis. At first I thought it was kinda nice we can learn how committed Spike is to his babies, but we kinda got that already in the first film, a good example of show don't tell in that regard. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of hearing Spike talk, but if it's just for the sake of a celebrity voice or dumb jokes, then it lowers the impact considerably. Of course I don't expect Spike to be stoic, but a little balance can go a long way, just saying.

Moving onto what I recall, in this movie Susie has a bigger role here than in previous films, and she is a very 50/50 character, or I just don't like her. I get it, she was meant to be a foil to Angelica, but she left a lot to be desired. If you don't like Susie this won't be too fun. This movie is also a musical. I mean, so was the first movie, but they went further with it, or just didn't do it as well.

Let's close this off by going over the underlying points behind each movie. The first Rugrats film was meant to introduce Dil, i.e. a new character to spice up the show which had been going on for seven-eight years by this point. A movie would be a grand entrance for a new character, while working out new development for existing ones. The second Rugrats film was meant to close off an ongoing story for Chuckie, who wants a new mom while learning to be brave, and he would not only get a mom, but a whole family out of the deal. This would also introduce more characters to the main series, but it provided a perfect closing to an ongoing deal with Chuckie.

Though in a better world this would've been a great finale.

So what was the point behind Rugrats Go Wild? At best a neat crossover idea. At worst, just a glorified promotion of Nickelodeon's most successful shows at the time that contains a laundry list of popular kids movies cliches with very little nuance. As if, the more you look into it, the worse it gets. There's the prospect of world building, yes, but this would've worked better if it was established in the past that the shows are connected in some way, build up anticipation and make the crossover hold more weight.

Nostalgia

Now, this can be considered a nostalgic movie for a lot of people, and that's perfectly fine. If you enjoyed it as a kid and still find enjoyment in it now, you have the right. I never saw this film when it was new, which is why I'm approaching it the way I did. I can't possibly speak for how kids would feel about this film, nor was it a part of my childhood, but if it was, would I speak more highly of this film? Maybe. Keep in mind, the first two Rugrats movies are nostalgic to me.

Final Thoughts

At best, Rugrats Go Wild works best as a freebie movie, coming in a multipack consisting of the previous two Rugrats films, a little bonus that you may not go for, but it's nice to have the option. A lot of people consider this better than the first Rugrats movie, I don't know why, not trying to be mean I'm just curious about that line of logic. They have the right, but personally I consider the first movie better for having more humble intentions and not going as hard on worser tropes... or maybe I'm just more nostalgic for it.

Sometimes it's easy to tell when a film is made as little more than a money job, especially when valuable IPs are on display. This could've been made better if the connection between both shows was made clear early on, if they cut out the common trappings of profitable kids movies, try to put in more emotional moments and either cut the cast down or make something work for a larger cast. Perhaps have a majority of them held prisoner and the rest try to save them. I dunno. Was nice to hear Spike talk though, but that's about it.

Who knows? Maybe all of this can change. Maybe one day I'll revisit the film and I'll have a better time with it. I wanted to like it, but I should've seen it when it was new. I'm well out of bounds now, but I don't want that to remain set in stone.