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.
