Why Teenage Robot was Cancelled Theories
 

Note: This is a thread where I am posting theories on why MLaaTR wasn't picked up for another season, and if I buy into the theory or not. So let's start with what would probably be the most popular theory...

The Yellow Sponge Theory
Basically the one thing that a lot of people will do is use Spongebob for a scapegoat for MLaaTR's cancellation... words cannot describe how tasteless of a theory this is. Now, I personally don't like Spongebob after the 1st season, but I know enough to say that there's no way one show's ratings can be the death of another show's ratings on the same network. I do not buy into this theory.

The Imaginary Theory
2004 was a dryspell, we weren't going to get a new episode of MLaaTR until Christmas, and in its time, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends made its big, successful debut. When I saw it that first time, it had so much charm, and it hasn't lost that charm. Unfortunately, some people want to use the popularity of Foster's Home as a scapegoat for Teenage Robot's cancellation. MLaaTR and Foster's are completely different shows though, making this theory entirely moot. I do not buy into this theory.

The Time-shifter Theory
Like all problems with Nickelodeon, they constantly move shows without warning, and when this happens, people are usually "Huh, wut?" because they end up watching another show, new, or in an attempt to save an old one. So the show once in that spot, has to take a back seat. I do buy into this theory a bit.

The Coleman Theory
Remember Zim? Remember when Eric Coleman was the Exec in charge of Nickelodeon when that show aired? He was also the Exec in Charge when MLaaTR was in its first season, and MLaaTR was being pushed back then! Unfortunately, after that first season, Eric Coleman was shown the door, and somebody else was put in his place, Nickelodeon went through a lot of tweaking, and unfortunately, MLaaTR fell victim as they felt the ratings weren't good enough. I do buy into this theory a lot.

The Creative Theory
Let's face it, Nickelodeon makes new shows about as much as Disney releases new High School Musical merchandise! (XD) Basically because of this, the recent shows get pushed out of the way to help promote the new show. But this hasn't stopped older shows from getting good ratings. I am on the fence with this theory.

The Numbers Theory
Nickelodeon stated that the ratings were good, but they weren't stellar. Usually a network will have expectations with a new show for ratings, if it meets those expectations, it continues. Perhaps maybe with the really huge gap between seasons 1 and 2, people just stopped caring about the show, and the 2nd season had some relatively low ratings because of it. I buy into this theory quite a bit.

The Impatient Theory
Remember the whole thing with Zim? Rob Renzetti didn't kiss Nickelodeon's butt, he basically believed a quality cartoon takes A LOT of time to produce, not two weeks. That's right, Nickelodeon expected episodes storyboarded in two weeks, I'm not sure how long the MLaaTR team took, but I'm certain it was longer than 2 weeks. I do buy into this theory a bit

The Person Theory
Amongst the people I've spoken with about MLaaTR outside of the Tremorton community, it seems most of them didn't like it because it wasn't to their liking. They basically found the characters to be annoying, the animation to be poor, they had never heard of it (This was of course coming from people who watched Nickelodeon when they were kids), people basically thought they were better writers than the show's (Remember, these writers were working on cartoons professionally for more than 10 years), or that it was a comedy, and not the soap opera drama anime tear jerker people expected it to be. This is the theory I stand by

Remember, these are my opinions and I could be totally off-base.

Well, first of all, I loved this show! I found it uniquely hilarious, it had a style similar to Fosters (though on a more minor scale). I loved the characters, all of them. Admittedly, there were no strong antagonists, but that doesn't spell death for a show, I mean, look at Fosters. Though, again, MLAATR was a super-hero show, so I guess that may make a bigger difference. I don't see much wrong creatively, but history has shown us that network execs are dumb. I won't bother backing up this statement with examples unless asked, cause everyone probably agrees with me. I don't think good ratings for one show has anything to do with cancellations of another. I think time-shifting does have a lot. Look at Fox shows that have been unjustly cancelled. I do think that networks put too much emphasis on the word "new". New is not really good for TV. New is something that hasn't had time to develop it's style properly, or it's characters. But in all other things that exec-type people work with, new is good, so the execs try to keep the show turnover at about each show having four seasons on average, and that's if they're good. I realise right now I probably should have used paragraphs, but it's too late for that. Essentially, I think it's boneheadedness of execs in general, and in specific, promoting new shows at the expense of enhancing existing ones.

Thank you for the serious chunk of your life you just wasted reading this.

And BTW, if your name, Shelltoon, refers to Sheldon from the aforementioned show, then good on you. I liked that guy. He was cool.

Interesting theories you have there, Shelltoon. I admit that the show is good, and that it was unique in animation and design. I had a feeling it was going to be cancelled for some reason, but Nick could have at least aired the remaining season 3 rather than remove it unfairly to the fans who have been eager to watch those episodes.

Hopefully, whatever Rob Renzetti has in mind, lets just hope that his next project winds up in another network that actually allows its creator room and time.

I love the show, it has a low BEL (bad episode level) but I didn't know it was still going, I rarely saw any new episodes.