HOME | DD

Description
Here we go with another Nicktoon to review: The Angry Beavers isn't a show that I've watched before I reviewed it, but the first time I've heard of this show is on a game called Nicktoons: Attack of the Toybots with Daggett as a prize for one of the mini-games. That's all about my experience with this show before, except I wasn't familiar with the praise this show received from 90s kids who grew up with this show. I didn't know how many 90s kids consider this as their favorite cartoon growing up and I have yet to see...

Yep, judging by the scorecard, I didn't like this show at all. According to the pie chart, this is the first time in Intrancity history where there's literally no recommendable episodes! The best episode of this show, Dagski and Norb, was close to being fair, except it's more of a debatable episode. You think I may be too harsh on this show, but...wait until I reach the writing, okay? Anyways, nearly 75% of the show was bad, with only 1 damned episode. Out of all the shows I've reviewed that received at most a weak rating, nearly all of them have a notorious episode, but I'm glad this show doesn't contain a single notorious. Yeah, just like Bunsen is a Beast carrying no notorious. If the best episode is just meh, which is probably horrible enough, you should also note that most of the episodes aren't that bad. I mean, look at the pie chart: Most of the episodes are just mediocre, like the show itself. This proves that I don't hate much from The Angry Beavers, but when there's no episodes I like, a problem arises while watching the show.

The responsibility for the show's poor state have to deal with the writing, which surprisingly isn't what destroys the show:

There literally isn't anything special to describe the writing. It's not terrible, but definitely far away from good territory. The premise alone isn't that interesting to begin with, but can it at least crack some good ideas? Well, let the meh episodes speak for themselves. Anyway, the writing is one thing that makes The Angry Beavers an obvious product for its time; cliched writing with little to no unique ideas, the slapstick (the heart of 90s shows) and funny characters. The problem I have with the writing is that a lot of them don't come out as interesting. In fact, it executes as boring for some of the time. You see, a quarter of the episodes only take place in the beavers' dam, and what is this show trying to tell? The philosophy of brother relationships. Yes, I can relate to the story here, despite the fact that it's often mean spirited in a rather unfair way. The humor, which adds to the cruelty of the show, is pretty decent as it can deliver some nice jokes here and there, but this time, it wasn't chuckle-worthy like how cartoons like Bunsen is a Beast can go as far as that level but instances show that it's hilarious. However, it makes it hard for me to laugh because the impact this show contains, cruelty and dullness, ruins the humor where some episodes that lack substances would constantly abuse one of the characters over and over. Speaking of that statement, the morals this show tries to tell are just awful. Most of them come out as highly ridiculous recommendations that are really contrary to how it works in today's life. This show tries to promote laziness and even nudity in one episode as a good thing but it comes out as an awkward ridicule that could've gotten one of the characters arrested. That just shows how bad these morals are because there isn't a lot of heart put into them, but they promote crimes as a good thing sometimes. Oh, and did I not forget to mention the huge amount of plot holes a lot of these episodes contain, especially the ones unsatisfactory and under? Betraying is what caused all the plot holes The Angry Beavers have to go from episode to episode where it only makes the episode less meaningful and rather all over the place. I mean, the writing is simple for its time, but when the episodes carry no setup and a bunch of contrived moments, it's treating The Angry Beavers like if it were just a plain 90's cartoon. What's the point of remembering this show if most of the aspects the writing carries are hauled from other 90s shows, those of which done better?

While most of these cons aren't that effective, the writing is lazy effort as it's in a time where cartoons are advancing thanks to Cartoon Network's latest invention, Dexter's Laboratory. The animation is also the same thing I described with the writing:

There is nothing outstanding or extraordinary about the animation except it's another factor that makes The Angry Beavers a generic 90s cartoon. We have the character animation that is also derived from other shows, except this time, I find it a disappointment. Why? If you compare the animation of the shows' intro, which includes fluid animation on the beavers, to the actual show's animation, nothing stands out for the character animation, it makes you wonder why the series' episodes aren't like the theme song? Feels like the only thing that the animators put the most effort into is obviously the intro, which is probably the only thing that a few people know about. But back to the shows' quality, where there's still nothing special. Some of the character designs, especially the beavers, look ugly. They still have some key body parts that make up a beaver like its teeth, webbed hands and feet and the black tail, but what kind of ruins the look that they are beavers is their pointy noses that makes them look like alminiquis (don't know who they are? look it up), or any other similar animal. Since the animators have some experiment with the designs, it's kind of justified. If you think the ugly looking beaver designs aren't enough, there's something pointless to describe here: why is there realistic-looking humans if they have their own human designs that fit with the show's quality? I mean, I didn't expect a show like The Angry Beavers to copy some design from a superhero comic to boost up the quality but as a matter of fact, they're just unnecessary. Just show the cartoon's design of the humans instead of cheesily-animated character designs that were ripped straight from a comic. Even the effects are cheaply animated into the series, as if it were chyroned into a frame of an episode. However, since cartoons at the time have limited technology to make the animation, it was meh for its time because the effects go over frame to frame with no zooming into other shots of the effect, but I can conclude from the effects that it did not age at all for the present. If you add all that up, it's just meh animation. While the colors are pretty colorful for a show like this and the character animation is still smooth, the designs are just ugly.

But wait a minute, the audio! What about the voice acting? It makes the quality worse because the voices don't fit very well with some of the characters. The beavers' voice acting doesn't sound like grumpy-like voices where it helps give the beavers an identity that their anger and constant nagging is what makes up of them, but when you have voice actors Richard Horvitz and Nick Balay voice these characters, it sounds really off because I thought they were supposed to be "the angry beavers". Horvitz was okay with Daggett, but when Balay added that chill touch to Norb, it honestly makes the title of the series hypocritical. I mean, Norb can be angry sometimes, but not all the time, but adding a chill voice to a beaver that is angry contradicts the series title. It only makes it more hypocritical when Norb smiles often. Heck, did you remember that the voice acting is sometimes inconsistent? Take the famous actor for example, when in the movies in Season 1 episodes, he talks like the movie wasn't real and no feeling is heard from these characters. And you know what about that? It makes fun of B-movies when it comes to poking fun at how the actors don't put a lot of feeling on their voices. But then in The Day The World Really Got Screwed Up, his voiced changed to something similar to Mr. Herriman from Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends or Professor Utonium from The Powerpuff Girls for no reason. Was it because one of the voice actors retired or died? No matter what the odds are, the new voice actor for the famous actor didn't try to sound like the voice actor whom voiced him in some B-movies. More characters that sound similar to other characters' voices are Stacy and Chelsea, the sisters of the Angry Beavers. I feel like the voice actors were given this Alvin and the Chipmunks vibe where the pitch of the character's voice is increased. Their voices don't need to be pitched up, but when the voice actors sound too mature for the sisters, the crew could've just replaced them with younger girls instead. All of this is a result of typical 90s animation where some of the designs look ugly or weird and is often inconsistent with a few character designs and unfitting voice actors.

The writing and quality makes up how The Angry Beavers scream the 90s a lot during its time. Since this is a Gumball Syndrome show, the case has to be settled with the characters:

90s kids would often praise them due to how funny and likable these characters are, but for me, every single one of them lack any sort of identity! The inconsistency The Angry Beavers have is so huge, even the characterization changes a lot at random times throughout the series. Again, with the Gumball Syndrome formula, the beavers are often cruel to one another, but I can see why the crew intended it: to show the philosophy of brother relationships. Honestly, that makes Daggett more of an annoying character than a funny one at that. While he does get some karma at the end, the damage he left on either Norb or even the entire forest is rather idiotic and contrived. This is where the inconsistency takes effect because in the first episode, he was the active type of character hoping to survive and live a new life, but thanks to the inconsistency, he is often immature that seems like he couldn't grow up. I mean, that makes sense where you grow up, but you can't let go of the past that you still carry it everywhere you go. I will admit it, the relatability The Angry Beavers have is quite strong, but what's my opinion on Norb? Well, half of the time he is a sloth where he doesn't do anything and rather wants Daggett to take care of everything because you guessed it, he's lazy, but as a matter of fact, he's like a roommate who cares about Daggett and deals with his antics. That's more relatability as you can see, but that is only taking away their identity. You don't know what is their characterization half of the time because character derailment happens often in the show where it doesn't explain anything why these characters are in this mood. While the development here is decent, other times it shows that thanks to how cruel these characters are, it proves that they are poorly-developed characters. And also, because that the title is "The Angry Beavers", there are sometimes where the beavers aren't angry and what contradicts the title some more is that sometimes, Daggett and Norb care about each other when you expect them to complain anywhere they go from place-to-place. Now I'm confused on who these characters are. Derailment is so big that it makes it hard for you to tell their identity. Who are these characters? But with all of that, even though the characters are pretty relatable, them lacking any sense of identity and cruelty basically ruins how we see these characters.

One of the factors of Nickelodeon’s corporate dark age is this one that has a sense of lazy writing crowded with plot holes, typical 90s animation and jerky-unlike-ably forgettable characters that all lack a certain identity. Inconsistency is what wrecked the show the most, even though barely anything terrible comes out of the beavers. I understand why 90s kids adore this show a lot while growing up, thanks to the humor, but The Angry Beavers is at a time where Gumball Syndrome is expanding. Like what I mentioned in my Ren & Stimpy scorecard where that cartoon is one of these cartoons that gave birth to the formula, and it spreads towards other shows like Animaniacs. Nickelodeon, at that time, you're beginning to slope down with cartoons like this, because of how forgettable and typical The Angry Beavers is for its time, nothing bright or dark comes out of this show, so it's in all inadequate (30%). Something forgettable isn't anything terrible, but it affects on how I remember a show, therefore there isn't a lot to talk about The Angry Beavers except it's an obvious product for its time. A generic kids cartoon only meant for laughs from the kids. But then a year later, The Angry Beavers have a new brother and oh man, it shared a lot of similarities.

Description
Here we go with another Nicktoon to review: The Angry Beavers isn't a show that I've watched before I reviewed it, but the first time I've heard of this show is on a game called Nicktoons: Attack of the Toybots with Daggett as a prize for one of the mini-games. That's all about my experience with this show before, except I wasn't familiar with the praise this show received from 90s kids who grew up with this show. I didn't know how many 90s kids consider this as their favorite cartoon growing up and I have yet to see...

Yep, judging by the scorecard, I didn't like this show at all. According to the pie chart, this is the first time in Intrancity history where there's literally no recommendable episodes! The best episode of this show, Dagski and Norb, was close to being fair, except it's more of a debatable episode. You think I may be too harsh on this show, but...wait until I reach the writing, okay? Anyways, nearly 75% of the show was bad, with only 1 damned episode. Out of all the shows I've reviewed that received at most a weak rating, nearly all of them have a notorious episode, but I'm glad this show doesn't contain a single notorious. Yeah, just like Bunsen is a Beast carrying no notorious. If the best episode is just meh, which is probably horrible enough, you should also note that most of the episodes aren't that bad. I mean, look at the pie chart: Most of the episodes are just mediocre, like the show itself. This proves that I don't hate much from The Angry Beavers, but when there's no episodes I like, a problem arises while watching the show.

The responsibility for the show's poor state have to deal with the writing, which surprisingly isn't what destroys the show:

There literally isn't anything special to describe the writing. It's not terrible, but definitely far away from good territory. The premise alone isn't that interesting to begin with, but can it at least crack some good ideas? Well, let the meh episodes speak for themselves. Anyway, the writing is one thing that makes The Angry Beavers an obvious product for its time; cliched writing with little to no unique ideas, the slapstick (the heart of 90s shows) and funny characters. The problem I have with the writing is that a lot of them don't come out as interesting. In fact, it executes as boring for some of the time. You see, a quarter of the episodes only take place in the beavers' dam, and what is this show trying to tell? The philosophy of brother relationships. Yes, I can relate to the story here, despite the fact that it's often mean spirited in a rather unfair way. The humor, which adds to the cruelty of the show, is pretty decent as it can deliver some nice jokes here and there, but this time, it wasn't chuckle-worthy like how cartoons like Bunsen is a Beast can go as far as that level but instances show that it's hilarious. However, it makes it hard for me to laugh because the impact this show contains, cruelty and dullness, ruins the humor where some episodes that lack substances would constantly abuse one of the characters over and over. Speaking of that statement, the morals this show tries to tell are just awful. Most of them come out as highly ridiculous recommendations that are really contrary to how it works in today's life. This show tries to promote laziness and even nudity in one episode as a good thing but it comes out as an awkward ridicule that could've gotten one of the characters arrested. That just shows how bad these morals are because there isn't a lot of heart put into them, but they promote crimes as a good thing sometimes. Oh, and did I not forget to mention the huge amount of plot holes a lot of these episodes contain, especially the ones unsatisfactory and under? Betraying is what caused all the plot holes The Angry Beavers have to go from episode to episode where it only makes the episode less meaningful and rather all over the place. I mean, the writing is simple for its time, but when the episodes carry no setup and a bunch of contrived moments, it's treating The Angry Beavers like if it were just a plain 90's cartoon. What's the point of remembering this show if most of the aspects the writing carries are hauled from other 90s shows, those of which done better?

While most of these cons aren't that effective, the writing is lazy effort as it's in a time where cartoons are advancing thanks to Cartoon Network's latest invention, Dexter's Laboratory. The animation is also the same thing I described with the writing:

There is nothing outstanding or extraordinary about the animation except it's another factor that makes The Angry Beavers a generic 90s cartoon. We have the character animation that is also derived from other shows, except this time, I find it a disappointment. Why? If you compare the animation of the shows' intro, which includes fluid animation on the beavers, to the actual show's animation, nothing stands out for the character animation, it makes you wonder why the series' episodes aren't like the theme song? Feels like the only thing that the animators put the most effort into is obviously the intro, which is probably the only thing that a few people know about. But back to the shows' quality, where there's still nothing special. Some of the character designs, especially the beavers, look ugly. They still have some key body parts that make up a beaver like its teeth, webbed hands and feet and the black tail, but what kind of ruins the look that they are beavers is their pointy noses that makes them look like alminiquis (don't know who they are? look it up), or any other similar animal. Since the animators have some experiment with the designs, it's kind of justified. If you think the ugly looking beaver designs aren't enough, there's something pointless to describe here: why is there realistic-looking humans if they have their own human designs that fit with the show's quality? I mean, I didn't expect a show like The Angry Beavers to copy some design from a superhero comic to boost up the quality but as a matter of fact, they're just unnecessary. Just show the cartoon's design of the humans instead of cheesily-animated character designs that were ripped straight from a comic. Even the effects are cheaply animated into the series, as if it were chyroned into a frame of an episode. However, since cartoons at the time have limited technology to make the animation, it was meh for its time because the effects go over frame to frame with no zooming into other shots of the effect, but I can conclude from the effects that it did not age at all for the present. If you add all that up, it's just meh animation. While the colors are pretty colorful for a show like this and the character animation is still smooth, the designs are just ugly.

But wait a minute, the audio! What about the voice acting? It makes the quality worse because the voices don't fit very well with some of the characters. The beavers' voice acting doesn't sound like grumpy-like voices where it helps give the beavers an identity that their anger and constant nagging is what makes up of them, but when you have voice actors Richard Horvitz and Nick Balay voice these characters, it sounds really off because I thought they were supposed to be "the angry beavers". Horvitz was okay with Daggett, but when Balay added that chill touch to Norb, it honestly makes the title of the series hypocritical. I mean, Norb can be angry sometimes, but not all the time, but adding a chill voice to a beaver that is angry contradicts the series title. It only makes it more hypocritical when Norb smiles often. Heck, did you remember that the voice acting is sometimes inconsistent? Take the famous actor for example, when in the movies in Season 1 episodes, he talks like the movie wasn't real and no feeling is heard from these characters. And you know what about that? It makes fun of B-movies when it comes to poking fun at how the actors don't put a lot of feeling on their voices. But then in The Day The World Really Got Screwed Up, his voiced changed to something similar to Mr. Herriman from Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends or Professor Utonium from The Powerpuff Girls for no reason. Was it because one of the voice actors retired or died? No matter what the odds are, the new voice actor for the famous actor didn't try to sound like the voice actor whom voiced him in some B-movies. More characters that sound similar to other characters' voices are Stacy and Chelsea, the sisters of the Angry Beavers. I feel like the voice actors were given this Alvin and the Chipmunks vibe where the pitch of the character's voice is increased. Their voices don't need to be pitched up, but when the voice actors sound too mature for the sisters, the crew could've just replaced them with younger girls instead. All of this is a result of typical 90s animation where some of the designs look ugly or weird and is often inconsistent with a few character designs and unfitting voice actors.

The writing and quality makes up how The Angry Beavers scream the 90s a lot during its time. Since this is a Gumball Syndrome show, the case has to be settled with the characters:

90s kids would often praise them due to how funny and likable these characters are, but for me, every single one of them lack any sort of identity! The inconsistency The Angry Beavers have is so huge, even the characterization changes a lot at random times throughout the series. Again, with the Gumball Syndrome formula, the beavers are often cruel to one another, but I can see why the crew intended it: to show the philosophy of brother relationships. Honestly, that makes Daggett more of an annoying character than a funny one at that. While he does get some karma at the end, the damage he left on either Norb or even the entire forest is rather idiotic and contrived. This is where the inconsistency takes effect because in the first episode, he was the active type of character hoping to survive and live a new life, but thanks to the inconsistency, he is often immature that seems like he couldn't grow up. I mean, that makes sense where you grow up, but you can't let go of the past that you still carry it everywhere you go. I will admit it, the relatability The Angry Beavers have is quite strong, but what's my opinion on Norb? Well, half of the time he is a sloth where he doesn't do anything and rather wants Daggett to take care of everything because you guessed it, he's lazy, but as a matter of fact, he's like a roommate who cares about Daggett and deals with his antics. That's more relatability as you can see, but that is only taking away their identity. You don't know what is their characterization half of the time because character derailment happens often in the show where it doesn't explain anything why these characters are in this mood. While the development here is decent, other times it shows that thanks to how cruel these characters are, it proves that they are poorly-developed characters. And also, because that the title is "The Angry Beavers", there are sometimes where the beavers aren't angry and what contradicts the title some more is that sometimes, Daggett and Norb care about each other when you expect them to complain anywhere they go from place-to-place. Now I'm confused on who these characters are. Derailment is so big that it makes it hard for you to tell their identity. Who are these characters? But with all of that, even though the characters are pretty relatable, them lacking any sense of identity and cruelty basically ruins how we see these characters.

One of the factors of Nickelodeon’s corporate dark age is this one that has a sense of lazy writing crowded with plot holes, typical 90s animation and jerky-unlike-ably forgettable characters that all lack a certain identity. Inconsistency is what wrecked the show the most, even though barely anything terrible comes out of the beavers. I understand why 90s kids adore this show a lot while growing up, thanks to the humor, but The Angry Beavers is at a time where Gumball Syndrome is expanding. Like what I mentioned in my Ren & Stimpy scorecard where that cartoon is one of these cartoons that gave birth to the formula, and it spreads towards other shows like Animaniacs. Nickelodeon, at that time, you're beginning to slope down with cartoons like this, because of how forgettable and typical The Angry Beavers is for its time, nothing bright or dark comes out of this show, so it's in all inadequate (30%). Something forgettable isn't anything terrible, but it affects on how I remember a show, therefore there isn't a lot to talk about The Angry Beavers except it's an obvious product for its time. A generic kids cartoon only meant for laughs from the kids. But then a year later, The Angry Beavers have a new brother and oh man, it shared a lot of similarities.