A Review of Captain Flamingo

I've stated before that I consider 2005-2009 to be one of the darkest times in television animation, next to the 1970s it was an age of cartoons that ranged from mediocre to poor. In fact, I don't think I like this era at all. Unlike most people, I believed that the quality of animated series in the 2000s decade dropped around this time. There were good cartoons during the era, but they were few and far between. Part of this comes from the fact that I did grow out of children's cartoons around this time (as well as children's entertainment in general); I think we all go through a rite of passage where we think the cartoons we watched in our childhood are way better than the ones children nowadays watch. No matter which decade you've grown up in, we all have this notion. Now I'm not going to put the blame on those specific 4 years for the quality of these cartoons, it just so happens that they came out during this time frame to justify the late 2000s as being a "dark period". Case and point Captain Flamingo.

I've also mentioned how they're cartoons that parody the superhero genre by taking it in a more
comedic direction. But there is also this sub-genre in which the heroes are children. Throughout the 2000s, there have been plenty of cartoons that have young characters that fight crime using special powers or gadgets. This trend was popular because of 'The Powerpuff Girls'; while not the first show to use this concept, the original series was such a hit that many animation companies wanted a piece of the super-powered pie of righteousness. Created by Suzanne Bolch and John May, Captain Flamingo is one of these young superhero cartoons that took the concept in a much different direction than you would think. The inception for this idea first appeared in an episode of May's first show 'Deke Wilson's Mini Mysteries', in which a character wanted to be a bird-themed superhero of the same name. I remember watching this show when I had nothing better to do. It was on towards what I consider to be the end of my childhood, and it made up my decision to give up on the super kid genre. Not many people seem to remember this show; until recently there was not much about it online. But unlike 'Stickin' Around', this was an obscure cartoon I don't have the fondest memories of. It's quite a pity considering Suzanne and John did work on 'Stickin' Around', but I digress. But was Captain Flamingo the unsung hero animation needed at the time, or was it the 'Teen Titans Go!' of its day. Let's all put our birdbrains together and find out how.

The show is about a young boy called Milo Powell, who one day is tired of how much more privileged older people are than children, decides to become a superhero much like his favourite hero Quantum Vigilante. Albeit a bird-themed one, so he takes on the alter ego Captain Flamingo. But what makes Captain Flamingo different from other kid heroes is that he doesn't fight crime or save the town from monsters, instead, he fights in the name of child justice. So with his trusty bag of novelty items and the help of his sidekick Lizbeth, they go on missions to help those children in need. Each episode would start with Milo facing a certain predicament or having to achieve a personal goal. But then he gets called upon to carry out a mission. You know how there are superheroes that have their call of action; Batman has the bat signal, Spiderman has his spidey senses, whenever a kid would be in trouble they would shout "Uh-Oh Flamingo!" He and Lizbeth try to fix the kid's problem the best they can, but the captain ends up making things worse. The Captain then counts on his "Bird Brain" to think of a solution, when really its Lizbeth giving a suggestion. He still assumes that it's his own instinct; but he often misinterprets Lizbeth's advice, it doesn't matter as the captain inadvertently fixes the issue. Milo's actions in aiding the person lead to an outcome for his personal goals. In other words 'Captain Flamingo' has a main protagonist who defends the rights for kids everywhere, it tries to depict the problems children go through as high stake adventures, and teens as the antagonists. Well, I think there's a cartoon that does that concept a lot better. As you can tell; the show is very formulaic, but it barely does anything to mix up the formula or make each episode interesting enough to come back to. In each episode; the captain would come across a kid from his neighbourhood with a problem (big or small). In this case, it's not so much children's predicaments that are exaggerated as large, grandiose adventures, it's that each kid's problem gets out of control and comedically out of proportion. It kind of reminds me of the cartoon 'Hong Kong Phooey', in that it's always the sidekick who comes up with a way to save the day, yet the main hero always takes the credit. Normally in these types of shows, they try to reduce something serious to be silly or add impact to even the most average and mundane of activities. The aim of this show is to solve a series of unfortunate mishaps; however, it makes the dilemmas too simplistic to where it can only thrill an audience that's the same age as Milo. It also tries to leave you in suspense, but once you become accustomed to the formula, the novelty can wear thin for some people. It's not that the stories/scenarios aren't or can't be interesting, it's just they're not as interesting as they could be.

The show also tries to mix action with comedy, again there's another cartoon that does that much better. You might notice that the show tries to throw in any joke it can at any given moment. I know 'Mucha Lucha' has a similar style and tone of humour, but the jokes in that show I can actually remember and they managed to make me laugh. Whether they're verbal or visual, the jokes aren't that funny and even as a teenager I heard them all before. I assume younger viewers may find the gags amusing; there might be a joke that might lead them to ask their parents to fully get it, but they are mostly low-hanging fruit on the writer's part. The jokes can also be very lowbrow, but not done in a way that's clever or worth a smirk. When it comes to the action, it's mostly slapstick based. Much of it comes from the captain trying to fix the problem, resulting in a lot of havoc to break out. These gags involve the Captain and the other characters having to go through these shenanigans, as well as the effect it has on the people around him. Even so, the physical humour doesn't have enough of an impact; it would have worked if the set-up was made more gripping to give the more humorous gag a stronger result. I've stated this before in my review of 'Teen Titans Go!' but an action-comedy still needs to capture the weight and feel of its genre, that way the punch lines have more of a punch. There are also moments in which the captain fantasizes the predicament or the antagonist as much more threatening. But the fantasy also finds its way into the real world, they're bizarre occurrences that appear as either a random gag or a plot point. If the show wanted to be internally consistent, the fantasies should either be a figment of the main character's imagination or be a part of its world; you can't have it both ways. I know in cartoons like this they like to blur the line between what is real and what is not, but this show jumps from one side to another. I can accept a show taking a plot in an 'out there' direction, so long as it runs with the potential. These surreal occurrences feel like a deus ex machina or they can be pulled out from nowhere. Once again there's another cartoon that does a better job of showing things through the imagination of a child. How is it that someone that isn't interested in superheroes, understands how to parody the genre?

The animation for this series was done at Atomic Cartoons, a Canadian company who were one of the earliest pioneers in Adobe Animate (or Flash as it was once called) during the 2000s. And like a lot of Canadian cartoons, the visuals here haven't aged very well. The whole look of the show contains very generic designs that have been seen in plenty of other cartoons. Nothing about the show looks or feels unique or inspired, neither the designs on the characters or the backgrounds leave much to the imagination. I guess it's trying to go for a retro style, but the muted colour scheme makes it plain looking. I could see where it's going with the pulp styled title cards though. It doesn't help the character's movements are pretty minimal and automated; it follows the typical criteria of any Flash cartoon from that era, which makes it look even cheaper. Contrary to what you may think, I'm not opposed to Flash animation. I'm well aware people have done impressive things with the animation software, and that it has heavily evolved since then. The show seems to have the humour as the main driving force rather than the visuals, but as a superhero show, the action should be an important tool. Even if the show is primarily a comedy, the action scenes need to feel dynamic enough (at least in this day and age). When it tries to display all the slapstick or mishaps, it doesn't do anything to make it stand out from its contemporaries. I mean the movements are passable the animators did a decent job, not that it's anything remarkable. Atomic Cartoons had the potential to make interesting looking shows, but they have been affiliated with mediocre flash animation, and even now they've yet to push their own boundaries. On that note, this was also a co-production in the Philippines, so it predates 'The NutShack' by a year.

Characters and heroes in comic books are universally recognised, to the point where many see them as the modern-day myths. So how do the characters in this show fare? Let's start with our hero, Milo. He tries his best to prove himself as a hero, while also having to go through his own hardships. He also has to balance his responsibilities at home and duty to help kids in need. There's a quixotism to how he sees life as a comic book adventure, with a utility bag of his father's novelty items, he takes these predicaments on with a wing and a prayer (so to speak). Even with these items at his disposal, he doesn't get it right the first time. I suppose he's meant to be a protagonist the younger viewers can relate and look up to. But he can get so clueless to what's going on, and that habit of him misinterpreting things with his own "strategies" can get old pretty quick. But you can't argue with results. I consider Tabitha St. Germain an underrated voice actress, but the spunky little boy voice she gives him becomes a little too much. He sounds like a prepubescent Ryan Reynolds. I can't help but to imagine what Milo will be like when he's older; will he grow out of the superhero persona, or will he continue to live in his own delusions. I mean we all used to imagine ourselves as heroes, so you cannot fault him for that. I know I used to have fantasies at that age, but I grew out of it just ask my imaginary sister Helena. Lizbeth is the captain's sidekick and neighbour from across the street; she also has a crush on him even if he's unaware of her flirting. She's actually the more levelheaded one, so she's one of the more tolerable characters to me. Even though she has to put up with the captain ignoring her. Like Spot from 'Hong Kong Phooey' Lizbeth is the one who comes up with the ideas, yet she rarely (if ever) gets the appreciation she deserves for helping to solve the conflict.

Many of the child citizens the captain has to help have certain traits that the writers like to exploit. There's Max who's the youngest with a speech impediment, Owen Only who has a really overprotective mother, Avi who is cursed to cause an accidental chain of mounting disasters, Rutger the boy who puts himself in bad situations he can't get himself out of. Tabitha is an overachieving honour student who gets really stressed whenever things don't turn out for her, Otto is the strange foreign child who has an interest in the science of machinery and rocks (as well as picking his nose). The rest are more or less similar to one another, like having vague nationalities. Considering this is a superhero comedy, you'd think it would have a vast rogue gallery. But there aren't a lot of recurring villains. There's Warrior Monkey, the captain's arch-nemesis who is a regular monkey who Milo imagines as an anthropomorphic one in samurai armour. I've kept making comparisons to other cartoons; but some of you might think he's a copy of 'Mojo Jojo', now just because the characters are the same species that doesn't mean they're alike. But when the show is about a young superhero and the main villain is a primate, it's hard not to see the parallels. He just comes off as a wild animal that harms kids and causes mischief. Wendall, Milo's cousin brags about being an eighth of an inch taller than him. Whenever he makes an appearance, he and Milo are shown competing with each other. There's also Megan, who's a bossy teenage babysitter; she doesn't come off as that intimidating, as she ends up joining the kid's side in the end. Milo's parents have significant roles; with the mother who's caught up with errands and Milo's toddler brother Thor, she can also be quite firm with Milo. The father owns the joke shop where Milo gets his items from, he has a monotone voice and average mannerisms in contrast to his son's innocent roleplaying. Though Milo might have inherited his heroism from one of his parents. This show also has a narrator, and he does that thing in which he addresses the characters. I had a super dramatic announcer once I wonder where he went? The missions revolve around these recurring characters, and all of them are not badly written, but they're only memorable by their traits and the predicaments they get into. I mean would you want to spend the day helping them?

Bottom line, Captain Flamingo isn't much of a super show. The stories use the same formula without doing anything unique to the kid hero concept, the animation leaves a lot to be desired, the humour is by the numbers and the characters are one-note. Whatever it tries to do has been done better in other shows, it's like it tries to take aspects from such similar shows and put them together in order to make the "ultimate kid show". But it wasn't put in the right hands. Much of it is not as compelling or as funny as it could be, the main joke is that it makes mishaps out of simple dilemmas. Do I think this show is as bad as 'Teen Titans Go!' No not by a long shot. I wouldn't even say this killed the 'kid hero' trend; I believe that 'Fanboy and ChumChum' has that distinction. My recommendation for it is to see how it compares to other 'kid hero' cartoons, even though this trend may have been overhyped. Don't expect it to play the action genre straight, or parody the conventions, that is if you're big. If you're little; you might like this for the slapstick humour and characters. If you were a fan of this as a child, then more power to you. But if you were one of those teens who looked down on children for liking it, it's not like you were any better at that age. I'm sure this little flamingo tried to join among the likes of other comedic superheroes, but the only merit I can give him is a 3/5.

For the record, I'm not blaming this show for the state of cartoons during this era, not at all. Maybe it's not that I was too old to be watching these shows, maybe it's because my tastes and understanding of topics were developing, so this show didn't appeal to me. And if you were a child during this era, you may have grown out of shows like this, or you may have not. I should keep in mind that not every show from my childhood is as good as I remember it to be, I mean when was the last time you've even watched The Powerpuff Girls? But this is one hero that I'm too big to call for his help. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to......

*heavy breathing* I'm terribly sorry I'm late, *heavy breathing* I was stuck in traffic.
Well, the review is over now announcer guy, besides I haven't needed you for the past 6 years.
Then I guess you don't need my assistance anymore, good day.
Wait, Wait, don't take it the wrong way. It's just; when was the last time I did a review in this fashion?
You never even do one, all you ever touched upon was the more funny superhero shows, not the serious ones. I wasn't even used when you reviewed 'Teen Titans Go!
Those are really out of my comfort zone.
Don't you think it's your responsibility to review anything, regardless if you like it or not?
It's not like this blog is my lively hood.
Look mister; whether you review more superhero shows, or I'm out of here.
Fine go. Who needs you anyway? I don't, and I don't need this cartoon either! Goodbye.
*slams door* I knew I should have worked with that Mr Enter guy.

Man, I might have been too harsh on him.

A Retrospective on Michael Foreman Part 2

Going back to the 80s, Foreman has become a household name illustrating for various authors and book companies. His work received so much praise from the British public for re-inventing children's classics as well as making his own material. He was so acclaimed that he was called by writer Leon Garfield to make a book dedicated to the Bard

Shakespeare Stories-1985 and 1994

A unique collection of Shakespeare's greatest works, alongside Foreman's best watercolour and ink illustrations. Just the idea of that combination alone is excellent and this book shows. What Garfield and Foreman did for this book worked on so many levels, it had that right amount of text and imagery that stays faithful to the greatest plays ever written. Out of all the books Foreman has illustrated for I must say this is the one that not only students could read but adults who love theatre and artwork as well. I read this book every time I'm in the mood for some great Foreman artwork it's just that good a read.

This book was so successful that 9 years after it's release Garfield and Foreman did a follow up with the rest of Shakespeare's plays. It kept the same formula only the illustrations looked more updated. While some might say it's not as good as the first one, I disagree because for me it's like the first one only the illustrations has a brighter look and 'yes' it does have the Shakespearean plays that were not as well known as the ones in the first one but this one has a place in my heart, it's an underrated gem. As for what I think of the illustrations, they're beautiful and show how Foreman's style transited into what they are today. I definitely recommend these 2 books to anyone who loves the bard's work and those who are wanting to learn about these terrific plays for the first time.

The War Series-1989-1995

In 1989 Foreman wanted to write a book based on his childhood in the second world war and thus he made "War Boy: A Wartime Childhood". This has to be Foreman's most serious, darkest work ever, he presents the feeling of growing up in wartime with his trademark watercolour illustrations as well as some photographs and posters from that time. When I first heard about it I didn't bother all that much as I'm not into WW2 but with this, I made an exception as I had good expectations for it, when I managed to read this book I got exactly what I was hoping for. This book is definitely fascinating to read not only for Foreman's unique illustrative work but for the story that revolve around his childhood. It was not only praised by critics but it won him a Kate Greenaway Medal.

Later on, Foreman made a follow up to this book with "War Game: Village Green to No-man's Land. While the first book was more non-fiction Foreman decided to tell a story based on the first world war and the soldiers who battled for their country. War Game tells the story of a group of young friends who are called to duty to battle the Germans oversea, it talks about struggle and intensity. It also tells the story of how the two armies united in peace and joy for Christmas Day. This book was also a critical hit, they even called it a masterpiece as well as another award. It even had a short animated film based on it. When I read this book at school in Year 9 I didn't know what to think, but just by looking at Foreman great illustrations and by reading it I never read a war story so intriguing, it got me prepared for learning the First World War in history. Also if you read this book I'll tell you this, the ending is just tragic and I mean tragic.

In 1995 Foreman ended his series of war stories with "After the War was Over" Going back to non-fiction Foreman tells a story about the aftermath of the Second World War, like "War Boy" this book gives a look on the 40s and 50s through the eyes of Foreman himself told in a way that educates us as well. Now I haven't read this book but I could tell you from looking at some of the bits and pieces I saw from it I can tell you that it looks beautifully illustrated and I'll probably look at it some time.

While The General and War and Peas were more satirical takes on war, these war books told the readers about the impact of war as well as the history. They made you sympathise with the people because of how realistic it was written. Now, these books are pretty under-rated which makes them even more special. Though I'm not too big on the history of WW1 and WW2, may I add if you're into wartime stories or even Foreman's work I suggest you check them out, you've be surprised?

From looking at the books from the first part of Foreman's accomplishments, there were mostly stories made for younger children. However, in this part the books I'm listing here are not only for kids growing up but for grown-ups themselves. I feel since Shakespeare Stories Foreman has worked on very mature stuff and his collaboration with British writer Michael Morpurgo really shows.

Michael and Michael Don't Have Issues

Both being successful in the industry of children's books, these big names (or name if you will) joined forces to produce books that were successful among young boys as well as both their fan base. Their first collaboration was 19 years ago when Morpurgo wanted to do a book based on the Arthurian Legend "Arthur High King of Britain".
 This wonderful book has incredible watercolour illustrations as well as a whole new take on the story of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. This really showed how the 2 Michael's could work together as one, I like this book so much I want to do an illustrated re-telling of King Arthur that matches the same quality of this.

Considering "Arthur, HKOB" was a success both Foreman and Morpurgo went the same route in 1996 with "Robin of Sherwood". Once again Morpurgo has managed to tell a faithful adaptation to medieval legend, like "Arthur" he adds that same down to earth style to these well-known characters like "Little John, Frair Tuck, Sheriff of Nottingham and Maid Marian that makes their stories all the more unique. Foreman's illustrations once again makes the book recognisable to readers, the backgrounds are lush as always and the character design depict Foreman's more figurative style. As far as adaptions of folk heroes go these are very unique takes, so if you like the tales of both Robin Hood and King Arthur than may I suggest giving these 2 books a page turn, they're interesting for young adults as well as young readers alike.


These adaptions began an awesome relationship between these idols of children's literature, as they would continue to create more original, more down to earth novels. These proved to be successful hits among young readers in the UK with a reputation of positive feedback critically, books like Kensuke's Kingdom, Billy the Kid, Cool and Toro Toro were proven to be some of the highest-rated children's novels of the 21st Century. Now while I've never read these personally, I could see why people (especially Foreman fans) consider them descent books. And while some I didn't mention like "The Sleeping Sword" and "The Last Wolf" look okay there are some I consider under-rated in a way like Beowulf.

There are 2 books that came out in the 2000s, "The Amazing Story of Adolphus Tips" and "Kasper" seem to share something, they're about cats. When both books came out I was interested in them in the same I was with Arthur HKOB, so I glanced at them and to no surprise, the illustrations make the stories worth a look at. Now I don't judge books by their pictures but by their actual substance; but like some of the other Foreman/Morpurgo collaborations I'm thinking I would like these books just as much as Arthur and Robin (If I had the chance to read them) mean with how successful Morpurgo is as an author I might be just as invested in the story as well as the artwork.

In short Foreman and Morpurgo make a great book writing team, with their combined talents they've both managed to create some really creative books that would click with younger viewers as well as both their fan bases, which makes me wonder what these 2 will make for years to come. Whether it be a take on mythological legend or pure English originality I recommend checking out these books and more for any child or any person who interested in creating original stories.


Like Quentin Blake and Shirley Hughes, Michael Foreman is one of the most well-loved British book illustrators for all these good reasons and more. Both his illustrations and his stories have become a unique staple in children's literature as well as the reading industry in general; why? because his artwork is revolutionary, beautiful and even thought-provoking. From an artistic point of view Foreman has always changed his unique style though the cause of time like a good artist should, he understood illustration as an art-form and he would put a passion and devotion into each picture. Not only that but he would take chances with his own style given the source material he would work with.

But other than that, I adore Forman for the fact that he illustrates my favourite stories in a unique fashion and it's that illustrative style that introduced me to the stories I would read in later years. The way he designs characters and backgrounds is just wonderful to look at, just the way how he could blend them together is just so splendid, I mean this man really knows how to use watercolours. Every little detail on the facial expressions and skies just
gives his drawings life (man I could not get over how serene he could make the sky wow!) Just looking at his work in different decades fills you nostalgia and delight.

But with all those things said about Michael, what has he done recently? Well, just last year Foreman collaborated with the king of the fools himself "Michael Rosen" to create "Blue". Though I've personally haven't read it, just looking at the illustrations online, it looks like Foreman has done it again by taking a colour he knows best and taking it to a higher level. Like many of his books I like to think this book has the same amount of charm and wonder that appeals to both readers young and old. Also, this year will mark the release of "The Amazing Tale of Ali Pasha" a book about the adventures of a seaman and his tortoise which is stated to be based on a true story.

In conclusion, if you haven't heard of Michael Foreman's work before, then may I advise you look at his work as well as his contributions to children's literature. Because he's not only an influence on my style but towards many young readers alike, I wouldn't have discovered such amazing stories and wouldn't have appreciated the art of illustration if it weren't for him. It would be a dream for me to actually meet Foreman and it would be a pleasure to shake his hand and thank for what he has done for my childhood. It'll be a sad day when this man is gone, but his work, his kindness and his impact on me as a person will truly live on.

Thank you, Michael Foreman

The Lingo Show Review

Ever since "Dora the Explora" animation for younger kids has become either abysmal and boring in terms of writing and characters. Though there might be some exceptions (that I probably don't know of) but mostly there's nothing. One cartoon that looks like it's taken the same route as most kid shows these days but  actually thinks it's going outside the box. A recent show that only the people of UK know about is "The Lingo Show"

Now I'll start by saying I was not interested in seeing this show but after seeing a picture of it I became a little curious. Now I also know that any programme on CBeeBies is bad news in my book, but how bad can it be. For those who don't know, The Lingo Show is an animated/half live action hybrid about a minature circus with talking insects that entertains kids everywhere. The show teaches it's viewers different languages, now it sounds pretty promising for a show on CBeeBies. But is this better than the monstrosity known as "Bobinogs" or do we need to get out the bugspray.

Like I said The Lingo Show is about a bug called Lingo who conducts circus performances in a flying mechanical tent. The performers who are Wéi, Jargonaise, Queso, Blodwen, Dyzio, Jaadoo,
Kikli, Subah and Leib; are not only insects as well, but they come from different countries; so it adds more cultural equality. Lingo and his team would travel around the UK to perform their Big Bug show using one of his performers. The idea of animated talking bugs is much similar to "A Bug's Life" or "Santo Bugito" it may sound holesome when you look at it and the idea that it teaches pre-schoolers different languages before they go to school makes it work for older audiences as well, but does it make it more entertaining....well.....In the show, one of the character's must find different objects as props for his/her act, while the're getting the object the character teaches the viewers the name of the certain objects in his/her language. Now that wouldn't be a problem, if they didn't do it in every single episode!!!

Now this is where The Lingo Show falls flat, because it wants to focuss on being educational and because it tends to use that same formula in every episode, it feels like it's missing that element that makes a story a story. Also the way they teach kids a different language is too simplictic, now I know learning a new language is hard, especially for pre-schoolers and I'll admit that the strongest point is the variety of cultures. But the problem with "The Lingo Show" is that it suffers from what I like to call "kid show symdrome" where a tv show has to talk down to it's audience, relays on annoying characters and because it's aimed at children under the age of 7, they have the excuse for their flaws. 

Another thing The Lingo Show lacks is clever dialogue, it often resorts to breaking the forth wall but not in a funny or clever way. Theres also a running gag where Lingo and the other characters tell the audience to wave their hands in the air, is this an exercise show for a language show? Seriously the only reason why they do that is so they can bring the objects back and from where they found them.....How in the bloody name of Carol Vorderman does that teach children in any way. That if you want to borrow something you just wave your hands in the air like "HEEEEEYYYY HEY BABY!!! OH! AH! so they can appear in the place you want them No! that's not the way life works, even if you're a cartoon bug!

Now that we're done with the plot, let talk about the animation. Now the show has a mix of animation and live action which I must admit is a clever combination. It's animated in Flash so it's moves in the same way as "Naughty Naughty Pets" or "Mucha Lucha" while it could be better at least it fits the character designs. Speaking of which, the character design of the bugs looks cute but I've seen better; they look like background characters from "The Buzz on Maggie" if you ask me. Because the background is live-action as well as the human characters, theres very little design so it's more focused on the bug characters. The only problem is that there are not many bug designs which is lacking. Fortunetly the show doesn't focuss on the live action so it has a good ratio. So the visuals are meh, but at least it has some variety unlike Charly the Unicorn or the Bobinogs.

With the animation out of the way, let get on to the more important bit which is the characters.Unfortunatley the characters in Lingo Show have the personality of paint, despite them having different accents most of the characters lack any personality which doesn't help the show in any way. It seems like their only purpose is to get the objects they need for their performances and teach the audiences their languages. Because of this and that the producers refuse to tell a story none of the characters have any depth. Lingo is this perky bloke who mostly speaks to the audience while setting up his Big Bug Show and that's about it really, Queso the Spanish bug who like the others is not memorable or funny, which is a shame because he could have been a great comic relief. The rest are nothing special and it doesn't help that each of them have to sing their own theme song in every episode they're in; now to be fair I'm sure the actors were having fun with these roles but that alone won't save the show. Hey at least the bugs airn't racist stereotypes.

Overall The Lingo Show may seems like a fine show for younger viewers but turns out to be a typical broken kids cartoon with a repetative plot (if you can call it that), mediocure animation, bad forth-wall humor and characters whose purpose is to teach the audiences different languages and nothing else. It's nice to see a CBeeBie show teaches children different languages because it shows that it does stick to it's title but that alone won't save it. If you're like 5 or 6 you'll enjoy it, but if you're over that age limit than it feels like a lackluster. To the parents that are reading this, may I suggest you expose your kids to the Muzzy video than this.

As an answer to my question, is it better than Bobinogs?....Yes and No. Compared to Bobinogs  Lingo Show has more educational value, slightly better animation and less irritating gags. However what downgrades it, is it's lack of story, depth and humor; so it's debatable really. I don't depise the Lingo Show but I don't think it's that good compared to other recent cartoons like Adventure Time or Fish Hooks. I don't think it'll even last that long. I give The Lingo Show a rating of 1/5 just be thankful it's not on a channel for older kids.

Thats all I have people, I'll be back for more posts but for now I'm gonna catch up on my Portugese.