So Apparently The Rugrats 2021 Reboot Is Terrible... | C&B Extra

Paramount Plus has finally come to Australia which has allowed me to watch the brand new Rugrats 2021 Reboot in all it's HD CGI glory, new voice actors and all. I thought I'd take some time and talk about the reviews and opinions out there for the new series and discuss some of the core critisms the series has had.
Personally I don't mind the CGI or the changed character voices and characters. I am personally very excited to see where the characters will go!
So here is a little look at some of the reviews and opinions that are revolving around the 2021 Nickelodeon Reboot of Rugrats.
The DEEEEETS:
Rugrats is an American computer-animated streaming television series created by Arlene Klasky, Gábor Csupó, and Paul Germain. It is described as both a revival and reboot of the original 1991 TV series of the same name. The series premiered on May 27, 2021, on Paramount+ as the second Nickelodeon CGI-animated web series created for the streaming service. Like the previous series, the series is produced by Klasky and Csupo's animation studio
IF YOU LIKED THIS VIDEO LEAVE A LIKE
● Click to never miss an episode! -
/ @candbextra
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEAVE A COMMENT
AND SUBSCRIBE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to my Main Channel!
● / cbcorp
#RugratsReboot #Nickelodeon #Rugrats #allgrownup #Rugrats2021 #paramountplus #nickelodeonreboot #tommypickles #review #opinion

[@andykishore]

1991 to 2004 is the only REAL Rugrats to me.

[@CandBExtra]

I mean I agree, I'm not the biggest fan of the series as a whole, All Grown Up was more my jam but no other cartoon episode has stuck in my mind like The Legend of Satchmo and Let There Be Light.

[@chesspunk489]

1991-1994 is the only real rugrats to me. The writing became terrible after season 3.

[@skullcrusher1547]

I only have one problem wit the movie. Why make the twins mom gay she wasn't gay she was a feminist and good mom and wife not lesbian

[@DanTheMan33088]

Because mUh DiVeRsItY

[@consumeroftoons2119]

Actually, if you count the reviews in total, it has more reviews lauding it than criticising it. For some reason, IMDB put the negative reviews on top. Which is annoying, because it's inherently misleading. Even if that's the case, not as many people really go on IMDB to review media these days anyway. I honestly find that it's detractors are for the most part, a very vocal minority. If you go on Twitter, there were plenty of people who had positive things to say about the reboot when it first debuted, and the viewership has been high enough to be considered one of Paramount+'s most popular animated shows so far. So clearly, there is an audience for it out there. I'm not trying to throw everyone who doesn't like the reboot under the bus, but so far, the reviews I've seen on IMDB are from extremely nostalgia blinded people, or bot accounts, who are nitpicking the changes (The changes aren't even that huge, except for Lou being a hippie, and Betty being LGBT, and Stu, Didi and Tommy now living at Lou's house, than vice versa in the original), as an excuse to write it off. I've loved Rugrats since the mid 90s, and I've been a devoted fan for years, and the reboot is a keeper in my book. The way the showrunners (Who also worked on the original Rugrats) went about it was a smart compromise. They changed up a few things, to make the show more contemporary, and resonate with today's kids. But those changes don't hamper the new show, and they kept the timeless qualities of the show in place, so that it wins both over the original audience, and today's generation of kids. It's a fantastic new take on the series, and sans a few changes, it didn't feel like the show had stopped running all this time.

[@CandBExtra]

Very well put

[@DreadclawDragodon]

“Let your kids go play Fortnite” pretty much what the new generation does lmao

[@donnellmadison5586]

It's really a shame when someone claims your work doesn't have "soul" in it even when you try your best. I feel like the word soul or spark is just to vague of a term to throw at something you're critiquing

[@CandBExtra]

Yeah I agree, I think it comes from firstly an attempt to not sound like you are biased to the original due to nostalgia. Saying a level of quality is missing is much less wishy woshy in a review than "I don't like it cause it isn't the show I used to watch". And I think it also comes from a misunderstanding of why they have made the changes they have to the show. People would be saying the same thing if they just tried to make everything identical to the original. It's a lose, lose and I'm glad they went for the more creative option.

[@johnnymarrero8011]

It’s not terrible guys, it’s really good the reason people think it’s bad is because the CGI and also the grown ups are recasted but it’s not terrible it’s amaOng it’s gonna get some used to but it’s also doing really well on Paramount+ and Nickelodeon has very big plans for it

[@CandBExtra]

If the show gets renewed for more seasons it will be very interesting to see how it evolves

[@animationstation1005]

It's not terrible, it's actually really good! Not better than the original, but far better than All Grown Up! Hopefully it's not just me and Alpha Jay Show that thinks that

[@CandBExtra]

Ain't nothin better than All Grown Up, put up your dukes!

[@DreadclawDragodon]

But All Grown Up is good

[@lalaoopsiecookie6776]

:)

[@Cartoonking8562]

Some people don't see eye to eye with the rugrats reboot

[@Uncle-Jay]

I grew up with Rugrats, but I also didn't think it was all that great to begin with. I'd watch it once in awhile when there was nothing better on. My sister enjoyed it a lot though, so I probably ended up watching more than I care to admit. When I was older I was able to enjoy it a bit more because I noticed all of the adult jokes they snuck in. I guess my biggest issue with any reboots is that a majority of them don't respect the source material and that really bugs the hell out of me. Don't try to use my nostalgia as a marketing gimmick and then be surprised when I don't enjoy what you've done. Frankly a lot of times I would have enjoyed a reboot more if they would have just called it something else and done their own thing instead of just walking all over the franchise that made it great to begin with. Emulating an old show but making a ton of changes isn't the same as moving forward. At least with some of the garbage SpongeBob spin-offs they are literally doing something else, I didn't like the Patrick Show or Kamp Koral, but at least it was different instead of trying to pretend to be something it wasn't. I understand that they are wanting to do something new with the franchise, but there are changes they made that I just don't personally feel like were necessary or even "good". Why bump down Susie's age? Her entire point was to be a foil of the same age as Angelica, she completely loses that edge when she's younger. I know that there was a lot of complaining about Kimi and Dil not being there from the start, but I think folks tend to forget that they didn't show up until like after the movie(s). It was like what? 6th season? The idea that they may start from the beginning makes sense, especially if they wanted to focus on the whole concept of Chuckie's Mother like they did the originally series. The animation is whatever, it takes all types. It honestly does look kind of wonky sometimes and I noticed they made some character changes that feel weird to me, but besides that, it's fine. At the end of the day I have always felt like everyone's views are valid, regardless of how you feel about it. You may not appreciate the response someone doesn't like it because it's "different", but it's just as valid as anything else. It's kind of wild to me how personal some folks take these things.

[@consumeroftoons2119]

Criticisms are valid, just like with everything else. But my problem is that most of them are overblowing caveats and not being fair to it. They're just judging their opinions based on what other people have said, descriptions, and a few second clips that don't give proper context without watching it, and deciding for themselves. The argument people use against this reboot is that it's susceptible to nostalgia and doesn't make enough changes to keep people interested but the changes they have made have hacked off viewers, and I don't agree with that. The marketing may have banked on nostalgia, but the series doesn't and I think that's why it works so well compared to other reboots. The writers aren't interested in nostalgia baiting, but instead telling stories that will stand the test of time and can be enjoyed years from now. It's respecting of the source material, and even has most of the writers that worked on the original but they recognize that they can't do more of what they did before. The last season, while not bad, was showing signs of being rusty (Even Eryk Casemiro admitted this) and by refreshing the continuity, it's allowed the crew to think outside the box, and come swinging with fresh ideas. And the reboot isn't complacent with the idea that it's a reboot. They've made enough differences, and even fixed some of the original's flaws beyond the shallow surface ones that I think this reboot's existence is justified. (Angelica gaining more nuance, and having her character arch, learning more about the parents' backstories, Susie having more character development than she had before, lore and stronger continuity, tackling pregnancy in a mature manner that usually isn't seen in kids' shows, and Dil having character growth beyond the plot device he was before) They're not trying to imitate what they did before and that's a fallacy this reboot could have easily fallen into in the wrong hands. The Susie complaint is a good example of what I mentioned earlier. People read that they aged her down and assumed they made her a generic baby or terrified of Angelica. Kate Boutilier (who's running the show) has explained why they aged down Susie in a motley of interviews. Susie has had very little change to her character except now she's a year younger and non-verbal to the adults but that was for her to be included more in the show, and so she wouldn't tattle on Angelica because that would make writing stories too easy and they wanted to make it challenging. She and Angelica have their classic rivalry, and Susie outmaneuvers and circumvents Angelica in every one of their conflicts. Being younger doesn't take her ability to trounce Angelica away as much as people think. ("The Big Diff" is the best example of this) Susie was a great character in the original, but one problem is that she had all but no flaws, (Except occasionally, like in "Tricycle Thief", "Meet the Carmichaels", and "Tricycle Thief) and was Angelica's perfect counterpart. Being the same age as Angelica would mean she would only appear in a few episodes and she appeared alot less than people usually remember. Now she's the babies' age, she's in almost every episode, we have a wider scope of her personality and she has character flaws. (Moments of self-doubt) So you get the right balance of a more fully realized character without compromising everything that made people love Susie in the original. If they reduced her ability to challenge Angelica, Cree Summer would probably object and not agree to return to the role. She always champions Susie as a positive representation of a strong African American girl and she would likely take offence if they minimized her personality. At least you understand why it took until the middle of the first season for Kimi to show up, and for Dil to appear in the second season. Of course the animation looks wonky, but that's the Rugrats way. I think they're going for a claymation look, because of the show's innocous tone and because it's a show about babies, it fits with the storytelling and writing style.

[@lalaoopsiecookie6776]

😭😭😭😭 C&B EXTRA you hurt my feelings 😭😭😭

[@danielferstendig]

I love the reboot but christine cavanuagh is not turning in her grave shes in heaven looking down from above.

[@kianab6880]

I never saw it but I like the parent better when there boomer and also I notice in rugrats clip when they had a lamp clown from the original one when Angelica broke tommy lamp and it look like they reuse an episode

[@CandBExtra]

....but you haven't seen the show? So your opinions aren't based on the show itself just what you think about it? This is the most internet answer imaginable lol

[@BejaeIngate]

See the thing about the wild kangaroos is, they’re pretty easy to deal with once you get the hang of it. It’s the Wallabies that are the real issue... Also yes please don’t call me Mum, it doesn’t go with my current fashion choices

[@muraleedharansreedevi7526]

Immediately liked the video 😊

[@metalspinda9594]

You liked Dil? He was such a one-trick pony! All he did was say "Yucky!" all the time. 🙄

[@CandBExtra]

....he was like a month old, you want him spouting shakespeare?

[@metalspinda9594]

@@CandBExtra Yes. Tommy doesn't start the series at age 1 either technically and the show was episodic. So yes I do because the original run of the cast, complete with pun-ish, self aware, miswording, frankly "spouted Shakespeare"! In the first seasons of Rugrats, The babies were little philosophers with Wit and smart jokes that more over than make them watchable, *characterized* them. It was the creator's wife, who produced the show, that thought it would be a good idea to make the babies more "baby like" and less introspective and imaginative. I wouldn't be surprised if Making Dil an "easy joke making prop" and adding that insufferable *violin* to the soundtrack in later seasons of the series was her idea as well. But hey that's ME! 💯

[@consumeroftoons2119]

​@@metalspinda9594 They were always imaginative, even in the Paul Germain era. They seemed incognizant when the parents were around, but when they left the room, they brought to light how retrospective, and penetrative they are, while having the naiveties, and curiosity of a baby. They mispronounced words more when Paul left. Paul and the writers were extremely careful to place a mispronounciation in a given scene, and try to not mess it up. (In an ironic twist, the babies mispronounce even less words in the reboot than they did during the original 65 episode run) Arlene and Paul have reconciled in recent years, and it was originally Paul that was going to run the reboot, with Denis M. Hannigan on board to compose the soundtrack. But, management at Nick changed mid development, and the new head of Nick Animation suggested that Eryk Casemiro and Kate Boutilier (who are veteran Rugrats writers) run it. Some of Paul's writers are on the team, with Rachel Lipman being Kate Boutilier's right hand woman, so the writing flare in the new take is a mix of the two writing styles.

[@metalspinda9594]

@@consumeroftoons2119 I noticed you had nothing about DIL to "walk back talk" specifically. So you agree DIL was the jump the shark moment?

[@jkgfdsful]

Oh cmon!! A reboot is the remaking of a show or movie. They are remaking the Rugrats! This show is not the Rugrats!! This show should be cancelled because it ruins the original show and yes it is the original show still!! It’s a stupid remake of it!! You need to learn what the word reboot means. They ruined the show!!

[@CandBExtra]

Someone is far too emotionally invested with this to even make it worth debating it with you lol