Reviews Comments: The bad message of more recent episodes of FOP

The bad message of more recent episodes of FOP
Personally, I love The Fairly Odd Parents. From the shorts of Oh Yeah Cartoons! up to its development into a full TV series—It was great I loved the seasons throughout before Poof was born (yes, I also blame Poof's birth for the show's Seasonal Rot).

In the past seasons, Cosmo and Wanda are just a somewhat conjugal family—meaning they've no kid(s). Timmy seeing that they feel a bit empty without a child of their own and always ignoring him by admiring babies, he wished for them to have one and much to his surprise, Cosmo is the carrier. After months of annoying labor, Poof was born and was discovered to be a boy in the end despite his feminine eyelashes.

Also, I'm beginning to notice that once Poof joined the cast, Timmy has been in situation's where he is pushed to take care of his "godbrother"—typical sitcom thing. Also the fact that Timmy is being considered by one of Cosmo and Wanda's family. It's almost as if Timmy is starting to drift away from his real human family, I thought that idea was pretty absurd. On the other hand, I wouldn't blame him since after the Flanderization of his parents, they became so abusive that it's almost beyond beating your child with a cane. He is usually left alone with an evil babysitter that is bent on possibly destroying him or simply to torture him. In the early episodes, Vicky wasn't even that evil and she would only make him miserable by doing chores and whatnot. His parents start treating him like a neglected house pet (see "Beach Blanket Bozos") and do nothing but think of themselves (i.e. going on outings without him, competing on which is better than who, etc.) I know they did that back then but that's when things were simply mild and tolerable. When they would get in some kind of trouble, Timmy would command his fairies to wave their wands and get themselves out of it. Okay, so apparently, his parents became so useless as if they're just relics. The recent series makes no sense at all. The stereotyping of Abusive Parents within this show is Up To Eleven and the message of leaving your own family is just bad message. A kid's show? No. For families? No. It's for sadists.


So, basically, Timmy's parents are horrible and abusive but he should continue to love and cling to them anyway, even though his surrogate parents have proven to be much more reliable? What sort of message is that?
comment #12252 Wackd 11th Jan 12
I drew the line at the episode where Timmy's parents finally fire Vicky. I was so thrilled to see it happen, but it was done in the stupidest way possible, with the parents ignoring VERY OBVIOUS signs of their son's abuse, only getting upset when it turns out Vicky recorded over their latest hobby of the week. The rest of the episode didn't fare much better. It's a far cry from Channel Chasers where they actually became aware of Vicky's misdeeds and were ready to fire her.

As for Cosmo and Wanda, I can live with most of the flanderization on the show, but seeing him go from a loving if a bit clingy husband, to gushing after every other woman and acting like Wanda blackmailed him into marrying her. Looking back on that awesome scene where he defends Wanda to his mother, it's hard to believe he's the same person.
comment #12255 KashimaKitty 11th Jan 12
You seems to forget that the reason Timmy has fairy godparents in the first place is because his parents were always like this, there may or may not be seasonal rot but they in particular haven't really change. However they're not all bad as shown of several episodes and if they weren't so stupid and knew what Vicky really was up to they would fire her in a second.

ps. you took way to long to get to the point, you could take off the second paragraph completely and nothing would change.

to gushing after every other woman and acting like Wanda blackmailed him into marrying her. Looking back on that awesome scene where he defends Wanda to his mother, it's hard to believe he's the same person.

I think that was just for comedy and not to be taken at face value, and Wanda too lusts over other men, it's to portray them as more realistic than the newly weed gooey for each other despite being married for thousands of years they initially were.
comment #12256 marcellX 11th Jan 12 (edited by: marcellX)
>>marcellX I think I could agree with you a bit. However, their new stuff is still unfunny to me (and probably to other old fans). I won't name anyone to blame but the fact that the show has really gone downhill is almost disappointing—I got a feeling that they might have a change of staff too... The show once had good values in them and good lessons. I know it sounds sugary-sweet and cheesy but that was much better.
comment #12270 KorenSteen 12th Jan 12 (edited by: KorenSteen)
IMO, the show Jumped The Shark into Seasonal Rot way before Poof came along (example: Vicky already became the annoying, over-the-top evil caricature you mentioned all the back at "Channel Chasers". Sigh, I miss when she was a realistic evil babysitter who put Timmy through understated abuse, rather than bringing out chainsaws and cackling all the time.)
comment #12271 ManwiththePlan 12th Jan 12 (edited by: ManwiththePlan)
The Fairly Odd Parents is definately a sad story when it comes to Western Animation. When you compare it to Spongebob Squarepants, I don't find it AS bad, but it's definitely gone down hill A LOT. The parents are horribly flanderized, I agree, but I actually miss Vicky as a villain. She's out of focus, and Crocker has replaced her as the main villain. They go so far as to even give him B Plots. In the first season, they did that to Chester and AJ, who no longer appear anymore. This series marks the downfall of quality Nickelodeon cartoons.
comment #15673 Lucymae2 5th Aug 12
marcellX: I thought he had fairy godparents because of Vicky?
comment #19408 ading 18th May 13
The point is misery. Vicky babysits other kids and they as far as we know don't have fairies, but Remmy Bucks-a-plenty has Wandisimo because his parents don't pay enough attention to even remember his name...or gender! and he doesn't have any friends, in fairy idol Chester got a fairy because his father was too busy with fame to spend any time with him and at the moment didn't had any friends since they weren't available. Vicky is terrible but Timmy wouldn't be babysit by her "so much" if his parents spend more time with him, and if they spend more attention to him Vicky wouldn't even be his babysitter to begin with.
comment #19417 marcellX 18th May 13
Nothing in Da Rules says that a godchild loses his or her fairies if their living situation improves. It's really rule of drama, rather than trying to keep his fairies around.
comment #19418 son 18th May 13
Actually it does.
comment #19423 marcellX 19th May 13
You get fairies because of neglect/overall dysfunction. The only times people lost their fairies in FOP is because they revealed their existence or they got too old. Where has it ever been said that a person loses his or her fairies after the dysfunction problem disappeared?
comment #19424 son 19th May 13
The episodes "Remy Rides Again", "The Switch Glitch" (and maybe the "school's out" movie) might have something else to say about that.
comment #19440 marcellX 19th May 13
I concede, a "perfect" life does lead to reassignment.

But not an "improved" (yet still imperfect) life. Timmy should have been able to get rid of Vicky in Channel Chasers. He would still have his neglectful parents, Mr. Crocker, and school situation.
comment #19441 son 19th May 13
Forget it dude, I'm tired of every discussion with you being riddled with fallacies because you have some sort of losing complex.
comment #19447 marcellX 20th May 13
Projecting again. Maybe you shouldn't take the internet seriously, especially after I gave you credit (twice).
comment #19462 son 20th May 13
You constantly bring the whole projection thing (which honestly looks just like a go to for you every time you don't have a comeback, basically an I know you are but what am I resort), don't you think it's a lot more plausible that the issue is really you, specially when you never explain your theories of projection. It's like every argument you're on the low end off you cling on to some small thing, even if it's not correct to try and avoid some form of complete loss. But moving on, despite my better judgement let's tear it down yet again.

The point has always been misery. Misery subjective, that's why every other customer of Vicky or student of Crocker or a combination of both doesn't have fairies. Which is why Tootie was twice as miserable as Timmy "that day" doesn't have fairies of her own. You don't need some perfect life to have your fairies taken from you, you just need a well enough situation by your own personal standards that you can live by without being constantly miserable without fairies, which is why all Vicky had to say was "I'm happy and I don't need fairies anymore" to get them taken away even when her situation was still the same. Pigeon hole away.
comment #19464 marcellX 20th May 13
It's not about winning, we're discussing fairly odd parents (and my little pony before that) for crying out loud, it's not a big deal. I couldn't care less if I'm wrong, I don't feel that I am wrong here but I could be. Sorry if I come off as arrogant, this Isn't that important to me.

Even without Vicky Timmy would still be miserable, meaning meaning it was stupid that Channel Chasers ended that way. Call it pigeon holing if you want to, that obstacle can be eliminated with Timmy keeping his fairies. In fact, Channel Chasers implied that Timmy could go through his teen years and teen problems while keeping his fairies (ignoring the BS brought up in the live action movie).

It's fun to discuss cartoons. But we shouldn't take it too seriously, sorry for provoking you.
comment #19465 son 21st May 13
See what I mean, first the whole calls of projections without explanation now the whole assumptions that the other party must be angry and some irrelevant this is just a cartoon argument as some sort of ad hominem. I beg to differ your claims of not caring about winning, bringing to question as to why you then make so many fallacies or since you brought the MLP discussions, such blatant misconceptions just to reply something, but that's getting another series, back to this one.

You said and I quote "I thought he had fairy godparents because of Vicky?" which I explained it's not so, otherwise all of Vicky's other clients including Timmy's friends would had fairies, then went on to say "Nothing in Da Rules says that a godchild loses his or her fairies if their living situation improves." which is also incorrect, then "The only times people lost their fairies in FOP is because they revealed their existence or they got too old. Where has it ever been said that a person loses his or her fairies after the dysfunction problem disappeared?" and after my reply you went with "I concede, a "perfect" life does lead to reassignment. But not an "improved" (yet still imperfect) life." that's just Movingthe Goalposts.

The channel chasers movie didn't prove that Timmy would still have fairies until he was 18 since it didn't jump to the future, just increased his age, and at the end all Timmy said was that Vicky was the thing that made him miserable enough for him to "get" fairies in the first place, but without her he's still miserable enough to "keep" them as shown on the episode she got her fired.
comment #19468 marcellX 21st May 13
My apology was genuine.
comment #19469 son 21st May 13
^ Firstly, it was me, not son, who said he had fairy godparents because of Vicky. Secondly, he is not moving the goalposts, because he is correct that without Vicky, Timmy would still be miserable, and those examples only say that being happy causes you to lose your fairies, not being slightly less miserable.
comment #19831 ading 12th Jun 13

In order to post comments, you need to

Get Known