Why do live-action superhero shows not seem to do well with kids these days?

[Poweranimals]

Whether it be Power Rangers or Kamen Rider, it ends up being neglected and underperforms. Sure, PR was overall a success, but most of that originated nearly 20 years ago. Nowadays, not so much.

Aaron Stone was given a short life-span before DXD ended it. The Troop is Nickelodeon's least promoted show and while the other shows get re-aired, with the Troop, if you miss the first airing, you're out of luck.

So what's with the bad luck for live-action superhero shows these days?

[Ed Liu]

I'm not sure, but the folks who frequent the Entertainment Board will probably have a better idea than those who frequent the Disney Animation forum :).

Thread moved.

[Poweranimals]

I could've sworn that's where I posted it.

[JAG]

I would imagine that the rise in live-action superhero movies is at least partially to blame. After watching spectacles like Spider-Man or The Dark Knight, the inferior effects and acting of something like Power Rangers become far more apparant. Why settle for the cheap stuff when you have a more epic alternative?

Even superhero cartoons do a far better job of portraying the action than a live-action show could. You can have animated characters doing anything you want to see, and realism is much less of an issue. Flash can circle the globe in the time it takes to blink. Beast Boy turns into dinosaurs to fight giant robots or demons made of fire. Team Avatar rides around on a six-legged, flying bison. Effectively portraying that kind of thing on a live action show, with the budget a live-action show is likely to have...not easy to do.

So you can settle for less, or watch something better. Which option seems more appealing? That's always been my take on this, anyway.

[R-Taco]

On a TV budget, live-action just can't pull off the effects a superhero show needs.

Also, a lot of stuff that works fine in comics and animation comes out just plain goofy in live-action.

[RonDrakenfan17]

I honestly don't know why Aaron Stone did bad.
It had a lot of things that not a lot of shows have these days.
Maybe lack of advertizment?

[Silverstar]

It's extremely difficult to make a decent superhero show in live-action, especially on a TV budget.

Animation is a lot friendlier and more accessible to superheroes because everything is drawn; it's a whole lot easier to have green skinned behemoths who can lift mountains, witch girls who can manipulate dark energy and androids who can conjure red tornadoes in a cartoon than it is in live-action. In many live-action superhero shows, the technical and budget limitations ring louder than the plots and characters. Plus, many of the superhero world's costumes and character archetypes, (aliens, monsters, gods, spandex-clad Adonises and Amazons, etc.) just look silly when portrayed by live actors whose physiology is all too real.

[Master Toon]

I honestly don't know why Aaron Stone did bad.
It had a lot of things that not a lot of shows have these days.
Maybe lack of advertizment?

I do not believe that Aarone Stone did badly. The only reason a 3rd season wasn't picked up was because Disney XD thought it was "too dark" for it's target demo.

[Antiyonder]

I tend to think that PR's decline had to do with the diminishing episode count for the following reasons:

1. Now for Ninja Storm and Dino Thunder not so much a problem since Doug would go for his own story with the occasional Sentai based plot. But when you're trying to adapt a 49-51 episode series into 38 or even 32 episodes, the story will tend to feel compressed.

2. The Ranger roster would vary from 6 to even 8 members altogether, making it pretty tricky to do good spotlight episodes. Not to mention that you don't get to grow accustomed to the core group before the additional member(s) arrive.

[Poweranimals]

I do not believe that Aarone Stone did badly. The only reason a 3rd season wasn't picked up was because Disney XD thought it was "too dark" for it's target demo.
According to Bruce Kalish, they asked for season 2 to be darker.

[Master Toon]

According to Bruce Kalish, they asked for season 2 to be darker.

Perhaps so but J.P. Manoux confirmed via video that Disney wanted more comedy and less dark actiony stuff. Bruce Kalish and Tania Gunadi were sitting right next to him when he said it.

[TMC1982]

Whether it be Power Rangers or Kamen Rider, it ends up being neglected and underperforms. Sure, PR was overall a success, but most of that originated nearly 20 years ago. Nowadays, not so much.

Aaron Stone was given a short life-span before DXD ended it. The Troop is Nickelodeon's least promoted show and while the other shows get re-aired, with the Troop, if you miss the first airing, you're out of luck.

So what's with the bad luck for live-action superhero shows these days?

The TVTropes website has a whole section devoted to so-called "Network Redhead Stepchildren". These types of shows tend to get the least amount of promotion and stick out like a sore thumb genre-wise and tonally.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Because Power Rangers was just a mid 90s fad. The reasons for its success had a lot more to do with toys and marketing than the actual shows. The hot toy, you know? The next Ninja Turtles or He-Man or Transformers or G.I. Joe. The hot thing that little Johnny had to have.

We're often in our geek nostalgia bubbles and can't see these things so we try to find storyline flaws or declines in quality, we point to the fact that it managed to limp along in different incarnations for years. But we ignore the hard truth, that what we have invested so much of ourselves in was, for most normal, rational people, just a temporary blip in pop culture. A momentary distraction. Being a geek for something like this is like being a hardcore Macarena enthusiast or a Beanie Baby Collector, it's funny and sad.

[Antiyonder]

Because Power Rangers was just a mid 90s fad. The reasons for its success had a lot more to do with toys and marketing than the actual shows.

Believe me, I considered the possibility, but then I look at Power Rangers second time of almost ending. Given Turbo's ratings, original Space was suppose to be the finale to the entire series rather than the original saga, but then the ratings for Space prompted the show to continue past PRIS.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Believe me, I considered the possibility, but then I look at Power Rangers second time of almost ending. Given Turbo's ratings, original Space was suppose to be the finale to the entire series rather than the original saga, but then the ratings for Space prompted the show to continue past PRIS.

It's not about ratings, though. Sometimes things have a brief moment as a cultural touchstone and can coast for years on that momentum, irrelevant as they have become in the -greater- public consciousness, and by greater public consciousness I mean the non-geek world that picks these things up, elevates them and then tosses them down when the novelty wears off and only geeks care. Garfield, for example. Still around and nobody cares. The main reaction to Garfield seems to be bemusement that it still appears on our comics page day after day with the same jokes for some reason.

[Poweranimals]

Perhaps so but J.P. Manoux confirmed via video that Disney wanted more comedy and less dark actiony stuff. Bruce Kalish and Tania Gunadi were sitting right next to him when he said it.
I'm aware of that. In fact I made a thread about it a while ago. However, Disney probably wouldn't have come to that unless the dark actiony stuff wasn't doing as well as the comedy sitcoms.

[launchpad20]

It's extremely difficult to make a decent superhero show in live-action, especially on a TV budget. Animation is a lot friendlier and more accessible to superheroes because everything is drawn; it's a whole lot easier to have green skinned behemoths who can lift mountains, witch girls who can manipulate dark energy and androids who can conjure red tornadoes in a cartoon than it is in live-action. In many live-action superhero shows, the technical and budget limitations ring louder than the plots and characters. Plus, many of the superhero world's costumes and character archetypes, (aliens, monsters, gods, spandex-clad Adonises and Amazons, etc.) just look silly when portrayed by live actors whose physiology is all too real.That would also explain why superheroes based material can only thrive in movies, and in animation, while television has all but given up on superheroes in favor of sitcoms, and reality shows. While animation isn't as expensive as live action movies, you can do just as much within an animation budget because everything is drawn up. Live action television has to work with limited budgets, and tight schedules. While we still got to see the likes of Batman, and The Incredible Hulk on out TV screens, the television world still has a long way to go before it can be on par with today's superhero movies.
I do not believe that Aarone Stone did badly. The only reason a 3rd season wasn't picked up was because Disney XD thought it was "too dark" for it's target demo.While i'm no fan of this show, this doesn't surprise me one bit. :shrug:

[Tommy Lawson]

The TVTropes website has a whole section devoted to so-called "Network Redhead Stepchildren". These types of shows tend to get the least amount of promotion and stick out like a sore thumb genre-wise and tonally.

As I noted here at Rangercrew (http://www.rangercrew.com/forum/showthread.php?14429-Royalty-Payments-to-Toei-The-Reason-Power-Rangers-is-on-ABC-Kids-Only), and in the MMPR Reversioned thread as well, the reason it gets that treatment is very simple - it is a shared property, between Toei and Disney. Disney does not have full control of the property. There are very few properties out there with shared ownership like Power Rangers has. Disney definitely isn't a big fan of sharing properties after buying Pixar. Pixar was making hit movie after hit movie, and Disney ultimately had to buy the company entirely to keep the profits from the Pixar movies. That was one of the biggest reasons they decided to buy Marvel outright last year - to avoid another Pixar scenario.

[launchpad20]

As I noted here at Rangercrew (http://www.rangercrew.com/forum/showthread.php?14429-Royalty-Payments-to-Toei-The-Reason-Power-Rangers-is-on-ABC-Kids-Only), and in the MMPR Reversioned thread as well, the reason it gets that treatment is very simple - it is a shared property, between Toei and Disney. Disney does not have full control of the property. There are very few properties out there with shared ownership like Power Rangers has. Disney definitely isn't a big fan of sharing properties after buying Pixar. Pixar was making hit movie after hit movie, and Disney ultimately had to buy the company entirely to keep the profits from the Pixar movies. That was one of the biggest reasons they decided to buy Marvel outright last year - to avoid another Pixar scenario.I'm no fan of 'Power Rangers', and i still question Disney's acquisition of them from Fox Kids.:mad: Before anything starts to heat up about my views, have a fat free yogurt (http://www.platypuscomix.net/kidswbyourself/ssws.jpg). It's on me. :yakko: Now the way, i see it, Disney doesn't want to deal with other companies making the kinds of profits they once made during the 90's, so instead of actually competing with others, they just gobble them up just so they could partake in someone else's profits. Would this be like a 'monopoly' of sorts?

[Master Toon]

I'm aware of that. In fact I made a thread about it a while ago. However, Disney probably wouldn't have come to that unless the dark actiony stuff wasn't doing as well as the comedy sitcoms.

Hmmm... you've got a point. It's a shame though, I thought Aaron Stone was pretty good. I know it would never have happened but it would've been so cool if Lee Thompson Young made an appearance as Silverstone.

[AdamYJ]

Because Power Rangers was just a mid 90s fad. The reasons for its success had a lot more to do with toys and marketing than the actual shows. The hot toy, you know? The next Ninja Turtles or He-Man or Transformers or G.I. Joe. The hot thing that little Johnny had to have.

We're often in our geek nostalgia bubbles and can't see these things so we try to find storyline flaws or declines in quality, we point to the fact that it managed to limp along in different incarnations for years. But we ignore the hard truth, that what we have invested so much of ourselves in was, for most normal, rational people, just a temporary blip in pop culture. A momentary distraction. Being a geek for something like this is like being a hardcore Macarena enthusiast or a Beanie Baby Collector, it's funny and sad.

Why does it do so well in Japan, though?

In Japan, Sentai and Kamen Rider have been around since the '70s and just keep going.

[Master Toon]

Why does it do so well in Japan, though?

In Japan, Sentai and Kamen Rider have been around since the '70s and just keep going.

There's a cultural difference. It does well in Japan because it was made in Japan for Japanese audiences. Just like I'm sure there's some American shows that are timeless to us but they probably don't give it a second glance. This is all very simple.

[Burgundy Ranger]

This might be Disney -- and maybe even for the first time -- taking some time to step back and actually figure out what its future approach is for the PR franchise.

For seven years they tried to keep up -- with mixed results -- with the fine-tuned Sentai machine, which cranked out something new each year.

Disney is to be commended for, for lack of a better term, treading water with the seasons from WF to RPM. I see what they're doing now as a one- (or two-) season timeout while they figure out how -- and possibly even if -- they will take their next step.

If there was any price that might have been paid during the Disney years is they lost the chance to hook the next generation of PR fans.