For the past couple decades or so, Nickelodeon and Disney Channel have been locked in a heated war, the children's live action series. While each network presented their own flavor at first, with Disney shows tending to favor kids in fantasy scenarios, and Nick shows bending more towards surreal, random humor. The two networks eventually just got lazier with their live action shows. Disney Channel realized that cheaply made, sloppily thrown together Pop star shows like Hannah Montana bring in as much green as shows with actual effort put into them. And Nick became too over-reliant on Dan "Hug her tighter, She's a Fighter" Schneider for much of the late 2000s and 2010s. At this point in time, which network is worse in terms of more recent kidcoms? Recent as in, the past 5-10 years.
As far as Disney Channel goes, the problem is that most of their shows are just bland. There's nothing offensively gross or infamous about them. They're just overly sterile, cookie-cutter dreck. It's like the endless squeaky clean family sitcoms of the late 80s and early 90s. While the specifics of each show vary, they all boil down to the same tropes.
* Teenage protagonists who act more like overgrown 9 year olds than middle/high school students.
* Adults are always zany or stupid
* Laugh Track
* Overly bright lighting and loud color pallets
* One of the stars being groomed to be a Pop star
* Scream Talking
* Some kind of moral or lesson learned after each episode
Rinse and repeat for the next show. Basically, if you've seen one Disney sitcom, you've seen them all. The only one to break the mold on the network currently, is Andi Mack.
Nickelodeon, for better or worse, takes more risks with their shows, more so earlier than these days. Sometimes, they put out a show that's so horrendously bad, that it needs to be seen to believed. Such as Fred: The Show, Marvin Marvin, Mr. Meaty, etc. Other times, they can put out some uniquely written and creatively styled shows like Ned's Declassified, House of Anubis, 100 Things to do before High School, and Legendary Dudas that stand out from the typical Disney fare. And then you get your bland, generic dreck from Dan "Show me your feet, so I can beat my meat" Schneider like iCarly, Game Shakers, Henry Danger, and Sam & Cat. They also tend to dabble in more types of shows than Disney, from Game Shows to Soap Operas, and generally have more relaxed standards than Disney Channel.
Neither have been particularly good in recent years, but If I had to pick the worst, I'd go with Nickelodeon. When Nick bombs, they bomb hard! They take more risks, but that also means they're more prone to infamously terrible shows than Disney. Disney shows are generally bad, but they're all bad for the same reasons, so they're of more consistent quality.
As far as Disney Channel goes, the problem is that most of their shows are just bland. There's nothing offensively gross or infamous about them. They're just overly sterile, cookie-cutter dreck. It's like the endless squeaky clean family sitcoms of the late 80s and early 90s. While the specifics of each show vary, they all boil down to the same tropes.
* Teenage protagonists who act more like overgrown 9 year olds than middle/high school students.
* Adults are always zany or stupid
* Laugh Track
* Overly bright lighting and loud color pallets
* One of the stars being groomed to be a Pop star
* Scream Talking
* Some kind of moral or lesson learned after each episode
Rinse and repeat for the next show. Basically, if you've seen one Disney sitcom, you've seen them all. The only one to break the mold on the network currently, is Andi Mack.
Nickelodeon, for better or worse, takes more risks with their shows, more so earlier than these days. Sometimes, they put out a show that's so horrendously bad, that it needs to be seen to believed. Such as Fred: The Show, Marvin Marvin, Mr. Meaty, etc. Other times, they can put out some uniquely written and creatively styled shows like Ned's Declassified, House of Anubis, 100 Things to do before High School, and Legendary Dudas that stand out from the typical Disney fare. And then you get your bland, generic dreck from Dan "Show me your feet, so I can beat my meat" Schneider like iCarly, Game Shakers, Henry Danger, and Sam & Cat. They also tend to dabble in more types of shows than Disney, from Game Shows to Soap Operas, and generally have more relaxed standards than Disney Channel.
Neither have been particularly good in recent years, but If I had to pick the worst, I'd go with Nickelodeon. When Nick bombs, they bomb hard! They take more risks, but that also means they're more prone to infamously terrible shows than Disney. Disney shows are generally bad, but they're all bad for the same reasons, so they're of more consistent quality.
